Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2005, 12:47 PM   #1 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Bush sells us out to Foreign Governments

So, why if Bush believes in his economic policies so much is he so willing to borrow more money from foreign countries than ALL OTHER presidents combined?

And why is there not a Conservative movement against this? Eventually this debt along with the national debt and the trade deficit are all going to come due and these countries are going to expect payment.

And what exactly has Bush promised these countries to get the money?

Why if we are such a great self sufficient country are we borrowing money?

What countries have we borrowed from? (I'm sure my friend Host will have more info on this.)

I am beginning to see the partisanship is as a country in severe decline in every aspect and noone willing to bite the bullet and take control to stop it. Instead the fingers are being pointed at both sides as the cause and continuation of it.


Another reason for the Neo-Cons to show their loving support for Bush. I await their excuses.

Quote:
For Immediate Release

Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-68571

BUSH ADMINISTRATION BREAKS RECORD

Administration Borrows more from Foreign Nations than Previous 42 Presidents Combined


WASHINGTON D.C.- President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined.


Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation’s history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.
"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability of our country can hardly be overstated,” said Rep. John Tanner (TN), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “The financial mismanagement of our country by the Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion.”



The Blue Dogs have long expressed tremendous concern over mounting U.S. debt and are particularly troubled by our growing dependence on foreign governments to finance our debt. Earlier this year, the Coalition offered a 12 Step Plan to cure our nation’s addiction to deficit spending. The Blue Dog plan required, among other things, that all federal agencies pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund to be used in the event of a natural disaster.



“No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years,” continued Rep. Tanner. “If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."
Link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...ks_record.html
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-15-2005 at 12:49 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:03 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
And it has not helped us at all..... our budget is still way out of control, those tax cuts for the rich sure are working aren't they? Instead of raising taxes we'll just increase the debt limit and borrow money from foreign governments and banks..... that's a very great policy to support now isn't it?

But of course Blue Dog is a bunch of Democrat Reps. so what do they know, huh?

We citizens are expected to pay-as-we-go why won't GOP Reps. support this for our government?

Why is this great "conservative" President not supporting this action? OOOO That's right his solution is to keep cutting taxes for the rich and keep cutting social spending and to keep borrowing money from FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BANKS....... what a great, great leader he is

Quote:
For Immediate Release
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-6857
BLUE DOGS OPPOSE IRRESPONSIBLE
DEBT LIMIT INCREASE
Coalition Encourages Congress to Act on PAYGO



Washington, D.C. - The Blue Dog Coalition today urged their colleagues to oppose an irresponsible increase in the debt limit if it does not include PAYGO: common sense budget rules that would prevent our nation from piling up insurmountable deficits.

Today, projections of large budget surpluses have been replaced with projections of deficits as far as the eye can see, and Congress is being asked to approve another increase in the debt limit to over eight trillion dollars. Then national debt has increased by $570 billion over the last twelve months and $1.5 trillion over the last three years. The national debt will exceed $10 trillion in just over four years under our current budget policies.

Last night, the Rules Committee defeated on a party line vote an amendment by Rep. Charlie Stenholm (TX), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy, that would have tied pay-as-you-go to the debt limit increase.

"Folks can continue to argue that deficits don't matter, but sooner or later financial reality will catch up to us and the markets will remind us that deficits do matter," stated Rep. Stenholm. "Just like credit card spending limits serve as a tool to force families to examine their household budgets, the debt limit reminds Congress and the President to evaluate our budget policies. A German philosopher named Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said that the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children. We cannot leave it to our grandchildren to shoulder the enormous burden of our debt."


For over a month, the Republican Leadership has been relying on the Treasury Secretary to use "extraordinary measures" to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit until mid-November to delay a vote on legislation increasing the debt limit. Specifically, Secretary Snow has suspended investment in the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund and Government Securities Investment Fund (TSP G Fund).

For months, Blue Dogs have offered bipartisan support for increasing the debt limit, if Republican leaders showed a commitment to preventing ballooning deficits in the future. Those offers of bipartisan support were ignored and time has run out. The United States will be in default if Congress does not increase the debt limit today.

"The Blue Dogs have indicated their willingness to provide the bipartisan support necessary to pass an increase in the debt limit, provided that increase includes a return to the common sense budget enforcement rules of the 1990's," explained Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA), the recently elected Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications for the 109th Congress. "The Blue Dogs will not stand by and watch Congress run our nation further into debt. Rather than pass the, Congress should act today to raise the debt ceiling and include strong budget enforcement measures to the legislation so our nation does not continue to face this crisis year after year."

"Today, Congress has a choice. We can be fiscally responsible and pass a debt limit increase in a bipartisan fashion by including common sense budget rules. Or, Congress can continue down a reckless and fiscally irresponsible path by not including PAYGO," said Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), incoming Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy for the 109th Congress. "If Congress chooses the latter, we will find increasing the debt limit becomes an annual event."
Link:http://www.house.gov/cardoza/BlueDogs/11_18_04.htm
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-15-2005 at 01:06 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Perhaps this would be an excelnt platform for the candidates in the next election. Instead of worrying about being attacked by unarmed, broke countries, maybe we can worry about acting like we're a kid who just got our first credit card.

Fiscal responsibility is as important as national defence in my book. I don't want to have to pay massive taxes later just to make up for complete financial incompetence now.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:38 PM   #4 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
The tax cuts were supposed to cut the deficit in half..... yet we're going to run $300 billion deficits for the next 10 years?

I thought Bush was coming into power with a nice surplus predicted, yet he leaves with record deficits? And the Conservative Right is ok with this?????? It takes a group of Dem. Reps. to push this?

Quote:
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, September 7, 2004
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-6857
CBO Projects Grim Forecast



Washington, D.C. - Members of Congress returning to Washington today were met with a rude awakening courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO projected today that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2004, which ends September 30th, will set the record for the largest deficit in history at $422 billion.

While the $422 billion deficit is slightly better than was projected earlier in the year, it still sets the record for the largest deficit in history - a record this Congress and administration should not be proud of achieving. CBO projects that the United States will continue to run a deficit of approximately $300 billion a year for the next decade. Additionally, CBO estimates that under current policies the current debt limit of $7.384 trillion could be reached in October 2004, requiring Congress to raise the debt limit for the third time in three years and raising the debt limit to over $8 trillion for the first time in history.


"CBO's warning that Congress will need to raise the debt limit for the third time in three years is a dire warning that our current fiscal policies are not working," explained Rep. Charlie Stenholm (TX), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy. "Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget, just like families across the country do every day."

CBO projects that the government will run unified deficits of $1.584 trillion from 2005-2009 under current policies and $2.294 trillion from 2005-2014 under current law. To make matters worse, if all of the tax cuts were made permanent, we would an additional $400 billion in debt over the next ten years.


"CBO's warning that our nation will continue to run $300 billion deficits for the next decade is a far cry from the administration's promises of cutting the deficit in half in five years," stated Rep. Jim Turner (TX), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration. "Our nation has never shown such little fiscal restraint in a time of war. It is completely irresponsible to run record-setting deficits at home while our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The result of this wastefulness is that when these brave soldiers come back home, they will have to pay for the war that they just fought. American troops simply deserve better than that."
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 03:10 PM   #5 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Don't confuse the national debt and federal deficit with the trade deficit, as they are seperate. The accumulated federal deficits are just the spend-happy government spending more than they are raking in. Something I don't think anyone is happy with if it continues for a prolonged period of time. But bush's "tax cuts for the rich" have actually acted to INCREASE tax revenues.
Quote:
The federal budget deficit has declined somewhat, according to new numbers released by the Congressional Budget Office. An increase in tax revenues caused the latest 2005 budget projections to cut the estimated deficit by $88 billion. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4800924
But on to the title of the post and what this post is all about - the trade deficit. The trade deficit is the most misunderstood aspect in economics. The most important economic truth to grasp about the U.S. trade deficit is that it has virtually nothing to do with trade policy. A nation's trade deficit is determined by the flow of investment funds into or out of the country. And those flows are determined by how much the people of a nation save and invest - two variables that are only marginally affected by trade policy. An understanding of the trade deficit begins with the balance of payments, the broadest accounting of a nation's international transactions. By definition, the balance of payments always equals zero - that is, what a country buys or gives away in the global market must equal what it sells or receives - because of the exchange nature of trade. People, whether trading across a street or across an ocean, will generally not give up something without receiving something of comparable value in return. The double-entry nature of international bookkeeping means that, for a nation as a whole, the value of what it gives to the rest of the world will be matched by the value of what it receives. There is no "selling out" to other nations.

One of the first things I learned in Macro101 and still remember is:

Savings - Investment = Exports - Imports

If a country runs a capital account surplus of $100 billion, it will run a current account deficit of $100 billion to balance its payments. What the trade deficit represents is that other countries are willing to invest their dollars in our country. It means we are an attractive country in which to invest. There is nothing wrong with running a trade deficit. Trade is good.

But if it was your policy to reduce the trade deficit one would only need to increase the domestic saving rate. Another way would be to reduce investment, but I don't think many people would advocate that, because investment is a good thing too.

Quote:
Misunderstanding of the trade deficit threatens to undermine the freedom to trade by encouraging faulty and damaging "solutions" to a problem that does not exist. Any attempt to fix the trade deficit through protectionism, export subsidies, or currency manipulation is bound to fail because none of those tools of intervention addresses the underlying causes of the trade deficit. The trade deficit will respond only to changes in a nation's net flow of foreign investment, which in turn is determined by its underlying rates of savings and investment.

America's $114 billion trade deficit in 1997, and the prospect of a larger deficit in 1998, are not a cause for worry. Our trade deficit reflects the fact that America remains an attractive haven for international investors. The trade deficit allows Americans to maintain a level of investment in our future productivity that would be impossible if we were required to rely solely on our current level of domestic savings.

None of the common concerns about the trade deficit holds up to empirical scrutiny. Trade deficits cannot be blamed for unemployment or slower growth, nor are they a sign of unfair trade practices abroad or declining industrial competitiveness at home. Trade deficits may even signify growing consumer demand and expanding investment opportunities.

What matters to a nation's economic health is not the difference between exports and imports but the degree to which its citizens are free to trade and invest across international borders. When citizens are allowed to buy and sell goods, services, and investment assets freely in the international marketplace, a nation's productive resources will tend to flow to the best and highest use, raising the nation's overall standard of living.

In the final analysis, nations do not trade with each other; people do. Every international transaction that Americans engage in will, by definition, leave both parties to the transaction believing they are better off than before--otherwise the transaction would not occur. By this measure, the "balance of trade" is always positive, benefiting the nation as a whole.
In summation, the trade deficit is nothing to get worked up about.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 03:20 PM   #6 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Upon further inspection I see you were talking about the budget deficit and not the trade dficit. Thats good, because the trade deficit is nothing to get worked up about.

As far as the budget deficits go, congress should spend less money. And there is empirical evidence that shows that tax cuts do increase tax revenues. it is not a straight-line formula, but more like a curve. A quote I had in my earlier post shows that this deficit is still nothing to worry about. 1 trillion may seem high, but as a percentage of GDP, it is not the highest we have seen.

Quote:
All Things Considered, August 15, 2005 · The federal budget deficit has declined somewhat, according to new numbers released by the Congressional Budget Office. An increase in tax revenues caused the latest 2005 budget projections to cut the estimated deficit by $88 billion.

The nonpartisan CBO said that while the news is welcome, it may not have long-reaching effect. The federal deficit for the year of 2004 was $396 billion. A $308 billion shortfall for 2005, as now estimated, would reflect the positive impact of the $88 billion.

While recent total deficit levels have set records, they are not as large a portion of the U.S. economy as previous shortfalls, in the 1980s and 1990s.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4800924
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 05:11 PM   #7 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
But if trade deficits are not a big deal then why is George Bush overseas trying to reduce it? It seems like all the politicians and unions etc....are all getting worked up over the trade deficit. I think even Greenspan commented on it too (not sure please correct me on that).

It seems the govt. is always making China, Japan the bogeyman in trade deficit and how we must reduce it etc.

So which is it then? If it's not a bad thing, why make it a big deal?
jorgelito is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 05:57 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
As far as the budget deficits go, congress should spend less money. And there is empirical evidence that shows that tax cuts do increase tax revenues. it is not a straight-line formula, but more like a curve. A quote I had in my earlier post shows that this deficit is still nothing to worry about. 1 trillion may seem high, but as a percentage of GDP, it is not the highest we have seen.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=4800924
It doesn't matter if tax cuts improve tax revenue. The government is still spending more than it is bringing in, hence the word 'deficit'. A deficit has the net effect of a tax hike because the government has to raise taxes, borrow money, or print more money to pay for it (all of which either lower the value of the dollar, or take more money out of your pocket).

Deficits = Future tax hikes.

Pan, the only thing I disagree with you about is that you think we need to increase taxes to secure a balanced budget. Increasing taxes will do nothing to help the deficit as long as we have politicians that have no regard for a budget. They already have an unlimited supply of money in their minds(borrow money, print money). Giving them more money is just huring you. You want to give more money that you could be spending responsibly to a government who has shown time and time again to spend it irresponsibly.

If you had a son or daughter who ran up the debt with your credit card, would you hand them another one, or even your checking account without teaching them a lesson first. It would seem pretty foolish to me.

I think the government should learn to spend what it has before we foolishly give them more.
samcol is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 06:08 PM   #9 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Pan, the only thing I disagree with you about is that you think we need to increase taxes to secure a balanced budget. Increasing taxes will do nothing to help the deficit as long as we have politicians that have no regard for a budget.

It's all a question of balance. If I'm far in the hole financially, I am certainly not going to go to HR and ask them to reduce my salary. By the same token, if the government is in debt, it should not reduce its tax rates.

Now, let's go over what Republicans always say when someone points out the fact that Clinton improved the economy. You remember that old line don't you? "nonono he didn't! Because see it takes 8 or more years for a president's economic policies to effect the economy!"

OK. Let's draw logical conclusions from that. Bush has been in office for 5 years. 5. Not 8. Not more than 8. Therefore, according to that wonderful republican "logic" Bush and his tax cuts are NOT improving the economy. Clinton's policies are taking effect right about now and are improving the economy.

And now the Republicans will say "well no but we NEVER said 8 + years!" (because this is what they say when you point out that their own words are biting them in the ass - they deny reality by claiming to have never said it in the first place) at which point I will say OK, then Clinton WAS responsible for improving the economy during his administration.

Therefore, no matter what stand you take on how long it takes a president's economic policies to effect the economy, Clintons policies work perfectly. Either they work perfectly long term or they take a few years to work. Either way, it's clear that there is another way to improve the economy than reducing taxes on your rich friends while spending as much as possible.

Last edited by shakran; 11-15-2005 at 06:10 PM..
shakran is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 06:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Of course........ just fuck it!!!!!! Great attitude. We'll borrow 1.05 TRILLION, pay some national debt offand be set because that 1.05 Trillion goes toward trade deficit and we don't have to worry about paying that.

Hey America, step up for some "fuck the debt" lemonade.

Bush is going to be running $300 BILLION deficits, at least. But it's ok, first we budgeted for him to spend $422 billion, then we just yearly add ontohow much total debt we can have, that allows us to spend without any regard whatsoever.

Then Bush will go overseas and borrow another $1.05 TRILLION to pay the deficit. Course he promises those countries they'll get their money back. So we'll invest that money into the rich corporations so that they can create jobs and we can have factories and a tax base again. This will eventually pay that debt off.

Wait a second.

That's right what was I thinking?

We ship the jobs overseas lower the company's overhead, lower the pay scales here in the US, tell people labor has it too good if they complain, and that's better. Don't know how but it is.

So now we owe this $1.05 TRILLION and we GIVE these countries our jobs too.

What a fucking bargain.

It's great to be a Bush fan and live knowing that our future is A-OK , "best president ever" they say!

And it is still all the Dems fault because they are in...... ooooo wait, the GOP is in charge of both houses and the Presidency...... but it's still the Dems fault, by God.

Better think of something fast before people see the truth...... WAR, Jesus in schools, Abortion, Terry Schiavo, CIA leak, 10 Commandments in the courthouse..... unpatriotic to question during war, you radicals......

How dare I be such a gloom and doomer, I will hold my head in shame now.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-15-2005, 06:51 PM   #11 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
It doesn't matter if tax cuts improve tax revenue. The government is still spending more than it is bringing in, hence the word 'deficit'. A deficit has the net effect of a tax hike because the government has to raise taxes, borrow money, or print more money to pay for it (all of which either lower the value of the dollar, or take more money out of your pocket).

Deficits = Future tax hikes.

Pan, the only thing I disagree with you about is that you think we need to increase taxes to secure a balanced budget. Increasing taxes will do nothing to help the deficit as long as we have politicians that have no regard for a budget. They already have an unlimited supply of money in their minds(borrow money, print money). Giving them more money is just huring you. You want to give more money that you could be spending responsibly to a government who has shown time and time again to spend it irresponsibly.

If you had a son or daughter who ran up the debt with your credit card, would you hand them another one, or even your checking account without teaching them a lesson first. It would seem pretty foolish to me.

I think the government should learn to spend what it has before we foolishly give them more.

I donot believe tax increases are the answer. At the rate we are going they will be the only answer and the rich will be paying a burden they will not be able to fathom.

No, the only way out of this is for government to invest in industry, create and keep decent waged jobs here.

By doing this you increase the amount of tax revenue coming in because of better wages and having factories again. And you never once had to increase tax rates.

You rollback the tax cuts on the rich (it's either roll them back now and invest in the country and jobs or eventually raise rates well beyond anything they ever paid before).

But of course that is not the GOP/Bush answer........... his and his followers answer.... borrow $1.05 TRILLION FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BANKS (we just add it to the trade deficit and laugh it off, Heaven help us if and when they ever decide to collect), send jobs overseas, and cut the taxes on the rich. Somehow that makes no sense.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 06:35 AM   #12 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
The staggering 1.05 trillion isn't borrowed soley from international governments - it also says financial institutions. The bulk of the money borrowed to cover the deficit is owed to the American People. If you hold t-bills or t-bonds the government owes you. They issue the bonds to cover the debt. Foreign governments also buy US treasuries, but they do so because they see it as a good investment. No one would buy them if they thought they were going to be worthless.

When dealing with budget deficits, it does not matter if you pay them off by raising taxes now, or borrowing the money and raising taxes later. They expected value of future tax payments remains the same. See Ricardian Equivalence.

Clinton had a buget surplus, not because of his fiscal policies but because we were in the midst of a tech boom. Remember how the DJI went from under 5,000 to over 10,000 under Clinton? It had nothing to do with his fiscal policies. There were buget surpluses during the clinton admin because of a stock market boom, techinical advancements, the end of the soviet union, and no war. The best thing a president can do for the economy is to leave it alone. Bush came in and saw buget surpluses left by clinton as proof that the american tax-payer was being taxed too much. (I see it that way too, surpluses should belong to the tax payer, not the government) Bush was in office less than a year when the tech bubble burst and 9/11 happened, neither of which was bush's fault (I know some people think everything is bush's fault). Compared to our economic standing in Oct. '01, our economy is doing very well. Unemployment is down to 5.1%, the DJI is nearing 11,000. Bush's tax cuts early on are now proving to increase tax revenues.

There is just a lot of pessimism, and you can worry and fret all you want, but I just don't have the time.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 07:33 AM   #13 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
<snip> and no war. <snip>
Seems to me that this is the biggest money pit in the American economy... fighting a war that was truly uneccessary. Had the US just invaded Afghanistan and concentrated solely on Afghanistan (rather than getting distracted with Iraq) there would be a much lower debt and deficit.

Of course, everyone would be a lot less safe, right?
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 08:21 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
The talk of budget surpluses is just rhetoric so long as the national debt goes up each year. Clinton and Congress managed to spend more than they brought in every year of his administration. There was no Surplus.
samcol is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 08:26 AM   #15 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Amazing, the Right who claim the government taxes too much and supposedly worries how government spends money comes up with excuses to say that the borrowing of the 1.05 TRILLION and the deficit spending of 300 Billion for the next 10 years and the constant raising of the debt limit is "ok".

Which I have serious problems with borrowing any money from foreign countries, yet Bush and his followers believe there is nothing wrong at all.

The bonds still have to be paid and T-Bills come due and people whoi buy them expect the money to be there and that it is worth something more than what they paid. The borrowing of the money from the banks and the foreign governments will come due, and they will expect payment of more than what they gave.

So basically, the argument from the right so far is, don';t worry about the debt because it will never come due.

This expectation of tax revenue to be the same is very optimistic considering downsizing, layoffs, huge companies filing bankruptcy and maybe gone, shipping jobs overseas and less pay. So with those coming and here, how is this tax base growing?

Ah, but the Bushy's still clasp to the "it's getting better", unemployment claims are down, the DJI are going up.

Yeah, you ever watch the market, the stocks go up when unemployment goes up not down.

As for the unemployment rates, they base those on new filings and after you have expended your allotment employed or not you are no longer in that count. Plus, if you get a job with lower pay, you are no longer listed, however that tax base you were supposed to be paying into is now lower and that means lower income for the government and you.

BTW, what happens when these countries and banks do not like what our country is doing and decide to collect their debts?????????

I know according to Bushy's we just print up all the money we need. Thereby inflating the whole damned economy to the point of destroying it.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 08:46 AM   #16 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
The big question is what happens if the oil producing nations begin to trade oil in Euros rather than US Dollars?

Most western currency is pegged to oil in a similar way to how it used to be pegged to gold. As international powers choose to do less business in US dollars in favour of other currencies, this will have a real impact on the US economy.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 10:22 AM   #17 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Amazing, the Right who claim the government taxes too much and supposedly worries how government spends money comes up with excuses to say that the borrowing of the 1.05 TRILLION and the deficit spending of 300 Billion for the next 10 years and the constant raising of the debt limit is "ok".
I never said it was OK. I said that it doesn't matter if we raise taxes now or later, the expected value of those tax payments remains the same. Obviously it is best to only spend what you have, but if you do spend more the sky will not fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Which I have serious problems with borrowing any money from foreign countries, yet Bush and his followers believe there is nothing wrong at all.
If another country wants to buy US treasuries and invest in this country that is good for us. That means their $$ are helping you and me obtain a higher standard of living. They could invest in any country, but they chose the US. wonder why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
The bonds still have to be paid and T-Bills come due and people whoi buy them expect the money to be there and that it is worth something more than what they paid. The borrowing of the money from the banks and the foreign governments will come due, and they will expect payment of more than what they gave.
Thats the whole point of investing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
So basically, the argument from the right so far is, don';t worry about the debt because it will never come due.
not really. Treasuries come due everyday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
This expectation of tax revenue to be the same is very optimistic considering downsizing, layoffs, huge companies filing bankruptcy and maybe gone, shipping jobs overseas and less pay. So with those coming and here, how is this tax base growing?
You watch too much lou dobbs. I have a secret for you...lou dobbs is full of shit. One thing that you can use to look at the state of the economy and how much value people place on businesses is the stock market. When the stock market goes up, people see value and strong companies and choose to invest in those companies. The stock market is generally a good indicator of how companies are doing. With the picture you paint, the stock market should be swirreling around in a toilet about to go under.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Ah, but the Bushy's still clasp to the "it's getting better", unemployment claims are down, the DJI are going up.

Yeah, you ever watch the market, the stocks go up when unemployment goes up not down.
You can't be serious? Where did you study economics? Since this isn't the best forum to do regression analysis, and I don't really have the time right now to run one to prove it to you I'll just post a few graphs for you to look at, then tell me there is a positive relationship between the stock market and unemployment. note that the unemployment rate graph starts in 90, while the sp500 graph starts in 96. If anything there is an NEGATIVE relationship between the stock market and unemployment.





Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
As for the unemployment rates, they base those on new filings and after you have expended your allotment employed or not you are no longer in that count.
So are you telling me that the unemployment rate is a bogus indicator and should not be used for anything? I know how they calculate unemployment, and its a relatively accurate measure. Do you have a better one? Data is collected on new filings, and that is what they report every month. They also calculate the unemployment rate based on the percentage of unemployed in the work force, and yes, you have to be actively seeking a job to be counted as unemployed. If you have given up and thrown in the towel, you aren't counted, but that doesn't make the unemployment rate a bogus number.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Plus, if you get a job with lower pay, you are no longer listed, however that tax base you were supposed to be paying into is now lower and that means lower income for the government and you.
Take a look at per capita income. Contrary to your belief it is growing and has continued to grow through out 2005. IF I had more time I would find the latest release from BEA, but I've spent too much here already today. I'm sure if you want you could look it up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
BTW, what happens when these countries and banks do not like what our country is doing and decide to collect their debts?????????
They try to sell their treasuries to another party. But they can't sell them back to the US treasury until they come due or until the US treasury calls them in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I know according to Bushy's we just print up all the money we need. Thereby inflating the whole damned economy to the point of destroying it.
Thats exactly what the "bushys" are saying.

I don't think I've heard that from anyone.
==========

There is mixed data, sometimes employment growth is not as good as expected, other times it is better. Inflation appears to be moderatly on the rise due to higher fuel costs. But, honestly, the sky is not falling.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 10:55 AM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
It's all a question of balance. If I'm far in the hole financially, I am certainly not going to go to HR and ask them to reduce my salary. By the same token, if the government is in debt, it should not reduce its tax rates.
That's true, but you should actively seek out ways to stop or reduce spending as much as necessary to begin to get your credit back and keep yourself from becoming bankrupt. With the money you save by cutting back, you pay off your debts. Once you have reached 0 again, then you plan better so it doesn't happen again.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 11:12 AM   #19 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
It's all a question of balance. If I'm far in the hole financially, I am certainly not going to go to HR and ask them to reduce my salary. By the same token, if the government is in debt, it should not reduce its tax rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
That's true, but you should actively seek out ways to stop or reduce spending as much as necessary to begin to get your credit back and keep yourself from becoming bankrupt. With the money you save by cutting back, you pay off your debts. Once you have reached 0 again, then you plan better so it doesn't happen again.
Cutting spending is definatly an approach that will go toward reducing budget deficits. Raising tax revenues is the other. There are many ways to raise tax revenues without raising taxes themselves. An increase in investment and increasing economic output both act to raise tax revenues. Both are done without raising taxes. Actually, lowering taxes helps to increase both investment and economic output. More money goes toward things like investing in new compaines, reinvesting profits back into the company, spending money on R&D. From there we get innovation and companies become more profitable than before. New technologies and innovations spread throughout the industry helping to increase economic output overall. Not only is one company more profitable, but many companies become more profitable. When a company is more profitable it can pay its employees more. These are all things that increase income both for the business and for the individual. When income rises across the board the government collects more in tax revenues than it did previously. All this is done by lowering taxes.

If raising taxes were the answer, do you think a 75% tax rate would help or hurt the economy? thus, would a 75% tax rate raise tax revenues or decrease. I can garuntee you tax revenues would fall in the years following a 75% tax rate.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Last edited by stevo; 11-16-2005 at 01:07 PM.. Reason: to add that I am replying to shakran and willravel and not pan
stevo is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 12:31 PM   #20 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Show me where I said raise taxes?

I said take the tax cuts Bush has made back, but as everyone else has stated tax cuts when heavily indebted and spending like a drunken sailor make no sense.

Below is a very well written article written by Michael Hodges, it explains and goes into great detail of our financial problem today.

The Bushy's keep ignoring blowing it off and giving excuses while they ship jobs overseas, the National debt alone now stands at $26,699.64 per person and continually growing.

The National debt right at this second stands at $8,066,143,318,410.41
and is growing. (info at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm)
Quote:
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
As you can see on the chart between Clinton's years 1993-2001 the debt increased roughly 1.4 Trillion (Less than .5 Trillion/year).

In 8 years, high but compare to Bush.

In Bush's years 2001-present it has gone up $2.2 Trillion in 4 years. ( more than .55 Trillion/ year), yet social programs like education, healthcare, small business loans, and so on spending has gone down.

But we need more tax cuts, we need to send more jobs overseas, we need to keep cutting wages for the worker but increase the wages for the CEO's.

Quote:
Foreign Trade & International Debt Report
Update 2005
by Michael W. Hodges, Author
Grandfather Economic Report
April 12, 2005

This is a mini-report about America's increasing dependence on international trade, its poor performance and reliance on savings from other nations instead of its own, causing accelerating debt and asset transfer in favor of foreign interests. Presented in an easy-to-understand format with data pictures, this report is a chapter of the Grandfather Economic Reports series showing various negative challenges facing families and their children, compared to prior generations.

Today's Headline at www.cbsmarketwatch.com

TRADE GAP HITS RECORD $61B IN FEB.
Chinese textile imports up 62.4% in first two months of '05


read article



QUESTION: Do our children and grandchildren deserve to be placed in a reduced international position with less independence from foreign interests than we inherited from our parents and grandparents? Would that make us proud? Are their future living standards and national security threatened by an economy that is more dependent on domestic and foreign debt, consuming more than we produce and with fewer foreign reserves backing up each citizen than others?

Since 1952 the international reserve position of the U.S. has fallen from 50% of the world's total to a 2.4% ratio—a 95% drop. The decline continues.

Many other productive nations now have up to 23 times more foreign reserves backing up each of their children than we have backing ours and their lead is increasing as the U.S. continues with massive trade deficits and record high internal private sector debt ratios with nil savings. With 5% of the world's population, America consumes over 20% of world imports.

The U.S. is the world's largest debtor, a long fall from being the world's largest creditor when I was a young worker.

For the past 30 years the U.S. increasingly has been unable to adequately compete internationally to balance its trade with the rest of the world to export sufficient goods to balance and pay for its imports. Massive deficits soared. Even the information technology sector is in deficit and for the first time food imports exceeded exports.

The U.S. economy is less independent than prior generations yet one quarter of the economy depends on international trade in goods, 3 times more than before—and foreign entities own more and more of our assets than we do theirs—while our education quality suffers relative to others.

The merchandise import ratio has soared five times, from 3% of national income in the mid-1960s to today's 16% ratio - - while the export ratio has failed to improve despite numerous devaluations of the dollar.

As the U.S. manufacturing base declined 60% the economy realized significantly less capacity to produce goods needed domestically or desired internationally - - assisting import ratios to national income soaring 5 times.

While the U.S. energy production base declined, energy consumption zoomed and the U.S. has become more dependent on imported foreign oil and natural gas than ever before, as graphically shown in the Energy Report. The oil consumption-production gap is a whopping 71% as consumption soars and production and reserves continually decline. At the time of World War II the US produced all the oil it needed, even exporting to others. No longer.

For most of the 20th century the U.S. 'wrote' most of the rules for world trade. No longer.

For a long time the U.S. dollar was unchallenged as the world's reserve currency. No Longer!



Year 2004 trade performance produced a $666 billion merchandise trade deficit, the largest negative trade balance in history.

Cumulative trade deficits since 1985 total $5 Trillion—producing a negative international net worth of $4 Trillion.

And these trade deficits are owed to non-Americans—not to ourselves.

Our annual international trade deficit is 35% larger than Social Security spending, 50% larger than all defense spending, and 2.5 times larger than Medicare. This International Trade Report, together with the chapter called America's Total Debt Report, proves we are living way beyond our means.



For decades Americans enjoyed the game of consuming more than we produce, borrowing from the future to make-up the shortfall with unprecedented ratios of domestic and foreign debt increasing much faster than national income. These are dramatic facts, with significant long-term implications for the currency, international economic power, relative standard of living, and possible national security of our nation's children into the future.

This over-borrowing from foreign interests cannot continue forever.
The signal to free-up our economy from debt addiction is clear.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE - NEGATIVE TRENDS EXPLODING !!

This chart measures the U.S. merchandise (goods, excluding military) trade balance each year since 1959. It shows previously the USA ran a balance of trade, meaning we were able to sell enough goods to other nations to pay for what we purchased from them.

America now runs massive deficits. If a country runs a trade deficit, it is borrowing from the rest of the world so that it can spend in excess of its own production. This means the USA is less competitive than before. NOTE: The U.S. is setting record negative trade balances each year. Since 1992, deficits have exploded. Look at that trend!!

This chart shows 2004 trade performance in goods was a $666.2 billion trade deficit—the largest negative trade balance in history, 22% worse than prior year, despite a slow economy and a falling dollar exchange rate. Look at this chart again. Dangerous trend.

How can this record deficit continue in light of a falling exchange rate? The answer is an easy one > America's private and government sectors are increasing debts at a faster rate, much faster than incomes, causing more consumption and imports than could be supported by incomes and negligible savings. In a nut-shell > America is living beyond its means - - way, way beyond!!

The manufacturing base shrinkage is a major negative regarding trade balance and a major negative impact on U.S. economic independence and future living standards.

In the year to Nov. 2004, the U.S. had a total merchandise trade deficit of $653.8 billion, while Japan & Germany scored a cumulative trade surplus of $325 billion($132+$193 bill). That's a whopping $979 billion worse performance for the U.S. in JUST ONE YEAR. In 2001, for the first time, China surpassed Japan as the country with the largest trade gap with the United States. America's deficit with China surged 95% in the next 3 years, reaching $162 billion and 26% of total US trade deficits in 2004.

This vividly shows how America is living beyond its means—by consuming more goods made by others than it produces to meet the needs of foreigners—resulting in exploding debts in favor of foreigners, in addition to record high domestic debt ratios of household, business and the domestic financial sectors.

It can be seen that the pattern since the mid 1970s brings into focus the basic question above—America's lack of competitiveness world-wide—increasingly so each year. This indicates the U.S. has become less competitive, despite claims of recent improved productivity (mostly realized only by a narrow part of the economy and primarily by revising how they measure productivity and inflation).


USA CUMULATIVE TRADE DEFICITS—past 19 years

The chart above showed the USA merchandise trade deficit for each year—reaching an all-time record deficit in 2004 of $666 billion.

The left chart shows the USA cumulative merchandise trade deficit—with all nations since 1985. (cumulative means adding all deficits)

The cumulative merchandise goods trade deficit was $4.97 Trillion during the last 19 years (since 1985). That means each American man, woman and child effectively borrowed $17,020 from producers in other nations, because we Americans consumed more goods from other nations than we produced and sold abroad. As a result, foreigners now own nearly $5 trillion more in US assets than in 1985.

Not shown on the chart is the cumulative goods trade deficit since 1976—totaling $5.34 trillion. Prior to that period, America produced near continuing surpluses with the rest of the world allowing America to own more assets in foreign nations than they in ours. However, that net has eroded over recent years to an accelerating negative net worth.

Taking into account goods and services and investment flows, which is called the current account—"foreign-owned assets in the US totaled US$9.4 trillion in 2001 while US claims on the rest of the world amounted to US$7.2 trillion," according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers—meaning a net $2.2 trillion deficit with other nations as of 2001. Adding to this negative the combined current account deficits of $1.64 trillion for 2002, 2003 and 2004 sums to nearly negative $4 trillion against the U.S. in favor of non-U.S. entities.

Not only is the technology product sector in deficit, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service estimates 2005 will be the first year in nearly 50 that America will not turn an agricultural trade surplus.

How can competitiveness be said to rise as the result of higher so-called "productivity," if at the same time the trade deficit explodes? What competitiveness?" It is clear that the so-called 'economic boom' of the 1990s was a false boom, because the economy was fueled primarily by increasing internal and foreign debt - - instead of by internal production, savings and competitiveness.

The above chart shows our growing lack of competitiveness as we increase foreign debt at a faster pace. The long-term performance of our currency is our fault > negative trade balances fueled by massive domestic and international debts.


MANUFACTURING BASE DECLINE

How can America ever export enough goods to other nations to balance its negative balance of trade of soaring imports, if it has a declining manufacturing base?

The left chart, from the Family Income Report chapter about stagnant income growth, shows the trend of the number of manufacturing workers as a percentage of all U.S. employees (non-agriculture) - - from 26% in 1960 to 10% in 2004, a 60% drop in the manufacturing ratio.

On a GDP basis the trend is the same negative > the U.S. manufacturing base declined from 30.4% of GDP in 1953 (when we had a trade surplus) to 12.7% in 2003—a 58% drop in the manufacturing share of GDP—and more of the remaining manufacturing base is foreign-owned than before. (Bureau Economic Analysis table b-12, Economic Report of President, appendix table)

As America's manufacture of goods has become a much smaller share of the economy and of its work-force, the U.S. became 5 times more dependent on foreign imports—consuming 16% of national income, up from but 3% in 1960s. The export ratio has not improved in 30 years despite many devaluations of the dollar.

Note the down-sloping trend of this chart far pre-dates the opening of China as a major world manufacturer. According to economist Steve Roach of Morgan Stanley (4/05), "the average Chinese manufacturing worker made 12,496 yuan in 2003, which translates into about US$29 per week. By contrast, average weekly earnings of US manufacturing workers amounted to $636 per week in 2003. With Chinese manufacturing wage levels only 4.5% of their US counterpart, it would take about 20 years of sustained 15% annualized Chinese wage inflation to close half the wage gap with the US. Don’t kid yourself. Even with Chinese wage inflation, the economics of the labor arbitrage between the US and China remain compelling for as far as the eye can see." Of course Mr. Roach's statement assumes no inflation in the USA during the next 20 years, most unlikely considering U.S. inflation history.

Bottom-line > manufacturing base shrinkage is a major negative regarding America's trade balance, economic independence and future living standards, including national security.


DEBT-DRIVEN IMBALANCES

The chart at the top of this page showed America's trade deficits started soaring in the late 1970s to early 1980s. Today's deficits are increasing even faster.

Now look at the left chart, from the powerful chapter 'America's Total Debt Report.' It shows America's total debt (sum of all government debt and all private debt of households, business, and financial sectors) started to grow faster than growth of the economy's national income—at about the same time (late 1970s to early 1980s)—increasing even faster today.

What this says is that debt drives over-spending, over-consumption—beyond incomes and savings. Therefore, excessive debt also drives imports—faster and faster, driving soaring trade deficits.

This chart is a ratio chart—a ratio of total debt in America to national income. If America's debt dependence were not growing faster than the economy during this period, the chart's trend line would have remained horizontal. However, the debt ratio's trend line is straight up in the past 25 years, which means debt increased each and every year faster than growth of the economy. Much of that debt was promoted by Federal Reserve interest rate and government tax policies—including more rapid debt growth lately fueled by record low interest rates.

This 25+ year period of rapid debt growth (and rapid growth of trade deficits) was also a period of relatively stagnant inflation-adjusted median family income growth according to the Family Income Report chapter. That chapter also reports very strong income growth in the earlier period of this chart when debt ratios were not growing and when trade imports vs. exports were in balance.

To say soaring trade deficits were greatly influenced by soaring internal debt generation, which drove consumption beyond incomes and personal savings, would be an under-statement, for sure.

What are foreigners doing with that which we borrowed from them? Answer: they own increasing percentage of our businesses, stocks, bonds, real estate and government treasury bonds. Meaning > > Americans own less and less of their nation.

Devaluing the U.S. dollar's foreign exchange rate will not solve the problem > The Foreign Exchange Report chapter shows the U.S. dollar's exchange rate mostly declined during the above period of trade deficits and manufacturing base decline. This, of course, tends to prove that forcing down the dollar's exchange rate is not an assured recipe to produce long-term trade surpluses or a rising manufacturing base.

The above charts clearly show America's soaring negative trade balances are certainly impacted by an economy structured more debt-dependent and less manufacturing-dependent and less savings-dependent than ever before. While America can do nothing about Chinese labor rates or Germany's manufacturing expertise, its leaders certainly can do a great deal to cease promoting debt-driven consumption subsidized and fueled by tax and low interest rate policy.


DOES IT MATTER—THESE DEFICITS??

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said, "We cannot depend on imported capital, that is, a current account deficit, to offset low domestic savings indefinitely."

In its August 2001 annual assessment of the world's largest economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said "the yawning current account deficit raised the risk of a sharp depreciation in the U.S. currency."


On 25 July 2001 former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker told the Senate Banking Committee hearing on risks of growing balance of payment deficit, "We are a debtor nation with nil personal savings and are absorbing a significant portion of other countries savings. These huge and growing external deficits are symptoms of imbalances in the national economy and the world economy that cannot be sustained."


On 30 April 2001 White House Economic Advisor Dr. Lawrence Lindsey said, "We are in uncharted territory - - it's unprecedented - - it cannot go on - - something has to give."

MIT professor Dr. Lester Thurow said, "No country can run a large trade deficit forever."

The U.S. Trade Deficit Commission, December 2000, said, "Not only is the trade deficit not sustainable, but it carries a great deal of danger to the nation and living standards.

Foreigners now own more and more of America—about "$8 trillion of U.S. financial assets, including 13% of all stocks and 24% of corporate bonds", according to Bridgewater Associates. According to the Federal Government Debt Report they also own 44% of Treasury bonds & bills. Additionally, they own real estate and factories.

There are zillions of items upon which America depends on foreigners to supply. Most know America is dependent on foreigners for 60% of its oil, much medical equipment, an increasing portion of automobiles, and most of the stuff sold by Wal-Mart. However, few know America is even 100% dependent on foreigners (British and French) for flu vaccines needed by senior citizens. A nation that will not even produce its own flu vaccines is not a very smart nation.

Americans should not be mad at foreign interests, hoping somehow they will change to accommodate our debt-driven consumption over production and savings. Americans are the ones consuming beyond our own production, creating unprecedented debts and trade deficits PLUS excessive regulations and government spending at all levels—with nil savings.



WHAT TO DO?

It has been said that there are only three ways in which negative trade balances can be restored: (1) the deficit-incurring country (USA) must cease excessive credit (debt) expansion, which sucks in imports faster than incomes warrant and allow interest rates to climb to reverse debt ratios, (2) other countries must inflate their economies to over-price their own production so as to suck up more U.S. exports, (3) the deficit country (USA) must allow its currency to depreciate to drive up prices.

What's happening? Answer (1) USA increases debt even faster (see America's Total Debt Report), while (2) crying for other countries to inflate away their currency and grow their imports from America, and (3) allowing depreciation of the US dollar (see Foreign Exchange Report), causing a loss of international buying power of every US wage earner and holder of dollars—to the tune of negative 40% against the Euro in recent years.

One should not accept leaders hiding-out by calling for a 'level playing field', demanding (as if they have a right to demand) that all non-Americans change their nations to also have huge, soaring debt ratios, near zero savings rates and a declining manufacturing base like America's, with U.S. regulatory compliance cost burden ratios, or even the number of U.S. lawyers per capita. The US must clean its own house. These are covered in the Full Trade Report—link below.

What should happen to those powers-to-be who promote and allow degradation of our currency, our international net worth, and foreign reserves per capita (the international buying power of its citizens)—and what should happen to those who promote tax and interest rate policies, which drive debt and consumption instead of production and savings—or about those who make America's future living standards and national security more and more dependent and beholden to non-Americans?????

Is that the proper legacy to pass along to our children and grandchildren? This author thinks NOT!!

The trends shown in the above charts (and those in the full report below) are most dramatic—a threat to our economy, and potentially to national security —and a threat to our increasing dependence on foreign-produced energy

Link: http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2005/0412.html
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-16-2005 at 12:45 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 02:01 PM   #21 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
So this thread is about the trade deficit? I'm confused are we talking about the trade deficit or the budget deficit? Its important not to confuse the two.

Well on to the trade deficit... I don't like to argue by discrediting an author, but after 30 min of searching for michael hodges this is all I could find on the fellow.
Quote:
Michael Hodges (email), educated in physics and a retired business executive, has developed extensive research regarding long-term economic & education trends in America as author of the Grandfather Economic Report series.
So the man has "been educated in" physics and was a business executive. He has no formal education in economics as far as I can tell. I don't know how much stock I would put on a man I'm not sure knows what he's talking about. He says:
Quote:
America now runs massive deficits. If a country runs a trade deficit, it is borrowing from the rest of the world so that it can spend in excess of its own production. This means the USA is less competitive than before.
Not exactly true, We are not borrowing from the world. We are buying imports. It is also not a governmental issue, it is a private one. Private companies are importing foreign goods to sell to americans. The americans are buying the goods and the money makes its way to the producer. There is no borrowing, The government does not go in debt because of a current account deficit. We just buy more than we sell overseas. This also does not mean we are less competitive in an overall sense. As you can see from the graph below industrial production has contiued to climb even during times of historically high trade deficits. High trade deficits do not mean we are losing "industrial might" or "competativeness"


A current account deficit (trade deficit) means we have a capital account surplus - we are investing more capital than we are saving.
One of the biggest factors in the trade deficit is importing foreign sources of energy, i.e. oil. More domestic production of oil would go a long way to help the trade deficit. Relaxing the regulations on domestic exploration and extraction of oil is a place to start. So is alternative fuel sources, alcohol (ethanol) for one, and I'm an advocate of it. There are plenty of farmers on subsidy that wouldn't have to be if we switched from gasoline to alcohol. But thats for another thread I suppose.

The point I'm trying to make is that running a trade deficit may sound bad, but in actuality it is not the end of the world. You have a better standard of living because of it.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 02:06 PM   #22 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Stevo... biodeisel would make more sense than alcohol... but you're right it belongs in another thread.

The trade deficit just shows that the global economy is strong.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 03:19 PM   #23 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
The thread is about both, trade and national debt.

As far as Michael goes, and your argument is legitimate, he was a close friend of and his work endorsed by Dr. Milton Friedman, Dr. Friedman (born July 15, 1912), a 1976 Nobel Prize winner for excellence in economics, is one of the most effective advocates of economic freedoms and free enterprise. A Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Hodges work consists of "The Grandfather Economic Report". found here: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/#tribute, which consists of a well researched, well recognized report on the financial disaster we are headed for. Including many charts and graphs that have been used by prominent financial experts.

Another good site ( http://www.wealthmoney.org/debt2.html) includes this:

Quote:
The National Debt


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



According to the Grandfather Economic Report found at http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm.

The total debt, in 1990, was $13 trillion, this includes the household (consumer) debt, the business debt and the federal, state and local government debt. This doesn't include the huge un-funded government liabilities. This amounts to $52,000 person or $208,000 for a family of four. That family's share of servicing the interest load on that debt, at 6% would have been $12,480 per year. In 1990 the median family's income was $40,000.

Currently, (2004) America's total debt is $37 trillion dollars, or $128,560 per man woman and child. This comes to $514,240 for a family of four. Now the family's share of servicing the interest load on this debt, at 6 percent, would be $30,854.40 per year. According the U.S. Dept. of Commerce the median family income is $43,500.

The total debt has grown $24 trillion, or $1.71 trillion per year since 1990. The additional interest load has grown by $102,600 billion a year since 1990. This means that the interest load for a family of four has increased by an average of $1,425 a year since 1990. If the debt keeps increasing at the same rate, by 2016 the median family's share of servicing the interest cost will be $47,954.40.

The median family income has increased by $250 a year since 1990. If their income increases at the same rate their annual income, by 2016 will be $46,500. This means the Median family's income will fall short of paying their share of the interest bill by $1,454.40 to say nothing about having any money for food and other things. The expanding interest load will have surpassed the total consumer income.

It has become very clear that we can't borrow our way to prosperity.

It's sad but the majority of the people don't understand the (SINISTER NATURE OF INTEREST). Many understand they pay interest directly when making house, car and other installment plan payments. Very few however, realize that is only a small part of the interest bill they pay. They don't realize that most businesses have huge debts and the interest on those debts is passed on to the consumer though higher prices. They don't realize that the federal, state, county, city governments and school districts have huge debts, and that the interest on those debts is passed on to the consumer though higher taxes and fees.

"If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit, If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." Robert Hemphill Federal Reserve of Atlanta

The defects in our money system are that "The actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks". Russell Munk U.S. Treasury

Therefore there is no way to create the money needed to pay the interest, which is charged, on the extensions of credit. People clearly do not understand that all interest increases the debt owed, but does not increase the money supply! Therefore, this makes the total debt unpayable. The best we can do is, pass greater debt on to the next generation. Do you care about your children's future? Do you care about this nation economic future?

As this debt, and the interest on it, grows it is obvious that the consumer has less and less discretionary income and businesses have less profit and more individuals, businesses, state and local governments will be forced into filing bankruptcy.
Let's make this simple. I'm the government I contract you to build a bridge for $240 Million. Now as you build that bridge I pay you, but I don't have enough money, so I print more money to pay you, I thereby create inflation, and decrease the buying power of that dollar I just paid you. So in the end that $240 million is only worth $200 million, yet you still have $240 million worth of bills, so you lose $40 million but I paid you the whole amount. (That is because you bidded based on prices being at a certain level, however with inflation the product you had to buy went up, but your contract value went down so you take a loss.)

The only other solutions are to increase taxes to pay you or to keep borrowing more money.

So either I keep printing more and more money and deflating the economy with skyrocketing inflation or I raise taxes or I keep borrowing money and create the same atmosphere, because in the end people's money just will not go as far.

Inflation hasn't gotten to that point yet, but it is coming. As long as inflation stays betwee -1 and 4% we are ok and can adjust quite fast, however, when the need for the money starts coming due, inflation will go up.

We have done well (figuratively speaking, because he has just postponed the inevitable) by having Greenspan and perhaps Bernanke can work numbers like him, but as deficit spending reaches new heights and the tax base keeps decreasing, it will get harder and harder.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 05:45 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
The Grandfather Economic report has been the best website I have found for understanding the macro economics of the United States. Especially in learning how the national debt really does hurt americans citizens every single day and not just in the future. It's a great website to spend an afternoon reading.
samcol is offline  
Old 11-16-2005, 06:57 PM   #25 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
If raising taxes were the answer, do you think a 75% tax rate would help or hurt the economy? thus, would a 75% tax rate raise tax revenues or decrease. I can garuntee you tax revenues would fall in the years following a 75% tax rate.
Let me guess. You don't support surgery as a treatment for disease, because cutting people in two is a bad idea.

Nobody disputes that there is a point of diminishing returns on tax revenue. We just despute the bullshit that it's under our current rates. Raising taxes to somewhere south of your hyperbolic numbers is not going to have that effect.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:09 AM   #26 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
A trade deficit against another country means that you rely heavily on the other country continuing to loan you product and not asking for payment.

When the debts come due, and they have to, or what is the purpose of even keeping track, the country holding the debt expects payment.

How are we going to pay?

The National debt and the fact that Bush has sold us out to other Foreign countries and banks, means that if we default on T-Bills, (which we won't do we'll just print up the money to pay thereby destroying our economy, most likely), those countries and banks will start collecting in other ways.

Right now a vast portion of our taxes goes to pay INTEREST, not for any programs to help us.

So we pay all this money in interest, and we end up short and borrowing more to cover the programs we need.

By cutting taxes and shipping jobs overseas, closing factories that paid taxes, closing private businesses that paid taxes, people working for less so less taxes can be collected from them, you are essentially destroying your tax base.

But the Bushys are more interested in company profit, they don't care that every job shipped overseas takes away our tax base. They don't care that cutting education and thereby falling behind in the world, cuts our children's futures to find a good paying job, thereby cutting the tax base.

They don't see that a country that does not make anything and is totally service oriented (as we are headed for) cuts good paying factory jobs, cuts wages, creates the need for these places to keep slashing prices so that people can afford to buy the products, however, manufacturing those products eventually will cost more than what they sell for as the cheaper labor has been decimated. (I can almost guarantee we have wiped exploited all the cheap labor we can find in Asia and we're going to be looking at Africa next for even cheaper labor soon.)

They don't see if the government doesn't have the money to invest in the small businesses (which were our greatest assets) and instead cuts those benefits and keeps subsidizing big companies with corporate welfare, you are cutting deep into the tax base, way too deep and not building any new tax base.

What happens when the labor and costs exceed the selling price? How long do you think it will take for the CEO's to close shop and use their golden parachutes, while workers are left to foot the bill?

Point is, the National debt and the trade deficit are intermingled and one may hurt us severely and take awhile to recover but together they will destroy us.

Look at GM, they go bankrupt, we're toast. They cut wages, we lose tax base. They move overseas, we lose tax base.

We cut their taxes (Or give them more corporate welfare) to keep them in business, we cut our tax base.

It's all about creating new tax bases so that you do not deplete your current tax base. But we haven't been doing that for quite a few years. We have been shipping jobs and factories overseas for cheaper labor and driving a death knell into our tax base.

Eventually it catches up and people want their money.

But what do I know? Tax base obviously means nothing when Bush keeps wanting to cut the rich's taxes.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 02:43 AM   #27 (permalink)
Psycho
 
After reading the title I'm somewhat relieved. I thought that Mr. Bush had sold missile technology to the Chinese or something equally as traitorous.

I would think the "War on Terror" or "the Oil War" whichever you prefer is having a huge impact on the budget deficit. It seems every time we get into a skirmish the budget deficit goes bonkers. We also had a tremendous debt after wwII, Korea and Vietnam so I guess this isn't much difference other than the numbers are inflated to reflect todays dollars.

Pan, what would you propose we cut to decrease the deficit? Yes it's out of control but noone on either side of the aisle wants their cash cow cut. Neither side wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants that are sucking the life blood out of us, cheap labor is to important to big business. Hell you can go on and on about what plagues this country but neither side is willing to step up, bite the bullet and fix the problems. Both sides know they are doing a terrible job that's why laws are enacted to protect themselves and their positions from a third party. When are we as taxpayers and voters going to say enough is enough?

This just isn't a Republican or Democrat problem, this is a Government problem but we continue year in and year out to reelect the same idiots, so who or what is really to blame?
scout is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 04:31 AM   #28 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
After reading the title I'm somewhat relieved. I thought that Mr. Bush had sold missile technology to the Chinese or something equally as traitorous.

I would think the "War on Terror" or "the Oil War" whichever you prefer is having a huge impact on the budget deficit. It seems every time we get into a skirmish the budget deficit goes bonkers. We also had a tremendous debt after wwII, Korea and Vietnam so I guess this isn't much difference other than the numbers are inflated to reflect todays dollars.

Pan, what would you propose we cut to decrease the deficit? Yes it's out of control but noone on either side of the aisle wants their cash cow cut. Neither side wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants that are sucking the life blood out of us, cheap labor is to important to big business. Hell you can go on and on about what plagues this country but neither side is willing to step up, bite the bullet and fix the problems. Both sides know they are doing a terrible job that's why laws are enacted to protect themselves and their positions from a third party. When are we as taxpayers and voters going to say enough is enough?

This just isn't a Republican or Democrat problem, this is a Government problem but we continue year in and year out to reelect the same idiots, so who or what is really to blame?

Personally, I would rollback the tax cuts Bush gave, pass laws that companies that do business in America no matter where their factories are must meet US labor standards and that includes minimum wage, 40 hour weeks and overtime.

Then I would reopen small business loans, cut pork like bridges to nowhere in Alaska and add all I could to education. Furthermore, I would work with the U.N. and any country willing to help us resolve the mess in Iraq so that we are no longer bogged down by it.

I would find ways to work with the manufacturing sector to find ways to get them to stay while paying employees fair wages and benefits.

I would hold accountable big oil and have them fund programs for the poor and elderly not just for heating and electric but for transportation. I would also have them set aside a %age to research and development of reuseable, renewable, cheaper fuels within 10 years. If they refused or held up progress, I would find companies that would take on the challenge whether in America or not and work with them on loans and grants.

I would hold accountable the healthcare and pharmaceutical companies and work with them for ways to lower prices. This is a HUGE problem that will bankrupt us if it is not fixed. The baby boom generation is aging and their health slowly going downhill with age.

I would surround myself with the best people in their fields (Economy, healthcare, manufacturing, technology and so on), and I would ask them how can we make America better, I could not do it nor want to do it by myself. What can we work on together, (Government, People and them) to ensure we move forward and realize our potential and not stay stagnant or regress like we have been doing.

I'd regulate mergers and buyouts of companies. If bank, oil company, cable company, computer company etc. "A" wants to buy or merge with company "B" then they need to show that job loss is minimal, there is a true need, there won't be a monopoly and the new company will not be heavily leveraged.

Then I'd work to unite the country.

Some of those are radical, some of those would change the way things are done, but if we do nothing and keep partisan fighting and ignore the problems thinking they will go away, they will continue to only get worse.

We are slicing our own throats in the name of greed, stupidity and refusing to work together as a country.

It is OUR tax money it should go to HELP the people not go to foreign countries and investors buying our T-Bills and holding our mortgages.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-17-2005 at 05:34 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 06:44 AM   #29 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Let's make this simple. I'm the government I contract you to build a bridge for $240 Million. Now as you build that bridge I pay you, but I don't have enough money, so I print more money to pay you, I thereby create inflation, and decrease the buying power of that dollar I just paid you. So in the end that $240 million is only worth $200 million, yet you still have $240 million worth of bills, so you lose $40 million but I paid you the whole amount. (That is because you bidded based on prices being at a certain level, however with inflation the product you had to buy went up, but your contract value went down so you take a loss.)
Wrong. I have bills for $240 million. The government prints up my $240million and pays me with it. That money may have less purchasing power than it did before I was paid, but I still have $240 million in cash. My bills are for $240million, I can pay them with the newly printed $240million just fine, no matter what it is worth. Inflation hits all of us. The debtor and the creditor. My $240 million today may just be worth $200 million yesterday, but my $240 million bill is now a $200 million bill. Understand? Cash is Cash. I'm not saying inflation doesn't matter, I'm saying that as long as the bill says I owe $240million, that doesn't change according to inflation. If I have $240 million in cash I can still pay that bill. Inflation hurts when I pay my creditor the $240 million and he can only go out and buy (yesterday's)$200million worth of goods and services with that money. He can't adjust his bill based on inflation after the fact.

It also appears you don't read anything I type. You still claim people are working for less and less, yet per capita personal income is up in all but 2 MSA's in the United States. per capita personal income is UP, people are not working for less and less money. Thats just misinformation you get from watching lou dobbs. What have I told you about lou? He's full of shit.

You also keep going on about how bushys are only concerned with company profit and don't care about the tax base going overseas, you do know that when a US company profits, it is taxed here in the US? When company profits are huge, tax revenues are also huge. A US company is based in the United States, but it can still do work overseas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
A trade deficit against another country means that you rely heavily on the other country continuing to loan you product and not asking for payment.
You are making my hair fall out! Where did you read this? This is 100% WRONG. like I said before a trade deficit is only where you import more than you export. It is also not a Government phenomenon, but a private one. Private businesses import and export every day all day 365. They also pay for the goods with every transaction. There is NO borrowing. I cant do this anymore, obviously you don't read anything I type. Start here and maybe we'll finish this discussion another day:
Quote:
Balance of trade
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Balance of trade figures, also called net exports (NX), are the sum of the money gained by a given economy by selling exports, minus the cost of buying imports. They form part of the balance of payments, which also includes other transactions such as the international investment position.

The figures are usually split into visible and invisible balance figures. The visible balance represents the physical goods, and invisible represents other forms of trade, e.g. the service economy.

A positive balance of trade is known as a trade surplus and consists of exporting more (in financial capital terms) than one imports. A negative balance of trade is known as a trade deficit or, informally, as a trade gap, and consists of importing more than one exports. Neither is necessarily dangerous in modern economies, although large trade surpluses or trade deficits may sometimes be a sign of other economic problems.

Factors that can affect the balance of trade figures include:

Prices of goods manufactured at home (influenced by the responsiveness of supply),
Exchange rates, and
Trade agreements or barriers
other tax, tariff and trade measures
Measuring the balance of payments can be problematic, due to problems with recording and collecting data. As an illustration of this problem, when official data for all countries in the world is added up it appears that the world is running a positive balance of payments with itself. The total reported amount of exports in the world is greater by a few percent than the total reported amount of imports. This cannot be true, because all transactions involve an equal credit or debit in the account of each nation. The discrepancy is widely believed to be explained by transactions intended to launder money or evade taxes, and other visibility problems.

Economic Impact of Balance of Trade
If the balance of trade is positive, then an economy exported more than it has imported. This may appear to be a good thing but may not always be so. An example of an economy in which a positive balance of payments is generally regarded as a bad thing is Japan in the 1990s. Because Japan had a consistently positive balance of payments, it had more currency than it could effectively invest, and it was reluctant to also offer full access to its own markets. This led to huge Japanese overseas purchases of items such as real estate, which were of questionable economic value. Furthermore, the protectionist measures that created the positive balance of trade also caused the price of goods in Japan to be much higher than they would have been had imports been freely allowed. The foreign currency Japanese companies earned overseas remained largely unconverted into yen in order to suppress the yen's value, further preventing Japanese consumers from benefiting from a vaunted "trade surplus".It is also possible for the terms of trade to be lower than before if there is an improvement in the balance of trade.

Negative balances are not necessarily terrible news, either. By economic definition, a persistent trade deficit can only exist if there is a corresponding capital surplus. Otherwise, the currency would naturally decline until the deficit were eliminated.

Popular myths about trade deficits
Very few issues in economics are misunderstood by the politicians and the public as much as the trade deficit. The metaphor of trade as some kind of battle, where surplus countries win and deficit countries lose, ignores the observation that trade is based on regional specialization. The long term theoretical push is toward equilibrium, for trade deficits and surpluses can only exist when there is an excess or lack of demand for a country's investment assets.

Debate about the American trade deficit
The United States has posted a rising trade deficit since its last surplus during its recession in 1991. Its persistence has been attributed to the dollar's role as a reserve currency, continued growth in the US economy, and the continued high demand for American investment assets. The decline in manufacturing in the United States has also affected the trade deficit.

Physical trade balance
Monetary trade balance is different from physical trade balance (which is expressed in amount of raw materials). Developed countries usually import a lot of primary raw materials from developing countries at low prices. Often, these materials are then converted into finished products, and an enormous amount of value is added. Although the EU (and other developed countries) has a balanced monetary trade balance, its physical trade balance (especially with developing countries) is negative, meaning that in terms of materials a lot more is imported than exported. That means the ecological footprint of developed countries is much larger than that of developing countries.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:35 AM   #30 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Sorry, to disagree, but OUR trade deficit is more than just importing more goods than we export. Name 1 major manufacturing industry we have here that isn't on the verge of bankruptcy...... name 1.

Steel..... all but dead
Auto.... dying
Aerodynamics.... dying and very close to death
Heavy equipment...... dying, the Japanese and Chinese own anything that is left here....
Clothing..... DEAD
Electronics..... DEAD
Textile....... on it's death bed

And what we do manufacture is of poor quality and below the standards of our parents and grandparents when they were our age.

We OWE these companies money. Mitsubishi, Toyota, Sanyo, Sony, Daewoo, you name it.

We are in extreme debt to these people and countries. When Wal*Mart purchases say 50,000 Mitsubishi DVD players that money goes to Japan. Wal*Mart keeps their profit but the rest is gone.

If GM buys steel from AK the money is gone, AK pays their workers in Mansfield or whatever plant, but the rest is gone overseas.

When we buy oil from Saudi the money is gone to Saudi.

When we buy shoes made in Malayasia the money is gone from our market UNLESS the purchases are equal and we have the same amount of their currency coming in. We don't therefore they OWN us.

Why do you think Daimler was able to buy Chrysler, or AK Steel is owned by Japan, and so on?

We are selling away everything because we have no choice anymore, we are far too indebted because of the trade imbalances.

If you are GM and I am Japanese AK Steel and you buy $2 million worth of steel from me, the money goes to Japan. I buy $100,000 worth of you cars and say, I don't want anymore cars I want my cash, pay me.

(And before you say.... oh well AK Steel has factories here, little story from a steel town in Ohio and my hometown, Mansfield. AK was told they were violating EPA and had some true health hazards around their land they needed to clean up. AK said "Fuck you, we're not a US company, we'll pack up and just go overseas." Guess who won? AK was told to negotiate with the labor in good faith, they said "Fuck you we're not a US company..... we'll go overseas." Yet, they collect $10,000" in US corporate welfare that is supposed to be to save our steel industry.)

China does not make steel any cheaper than we do.... their government subsidzes their steel because they know they will and are destroying our steel industry here.

In the 60's the Japanese said we'll build your transistor radios and your toys and they were able to get US dollars in and destroyed those industries here, but noone cared. Then they came in with their cars and took over the whole electronics business. Now, they and other countries call the shots and we manufacture hardly any electronics here.

The car industry is coming to a head also. The Right wants to blame the union. But the truth of the matter is the money IS GONE OVERSEAS. Trade deficits like we are running are suicidal.

Makle all the excuses you want, or need to live with. But the reality is the trade deficits are killing us with a double edge. First by taking OUR money out of the country and it's gone. Secondly, by destroying our industries.

The rate we are going we will be a country where the citizens own none of the land nor any of the businesses, because at the rate our money is leaving us that is what is happening. Look at how much of America our great ally China owns, or the UK or Japan, then look how much interest they own in our businesses, how much land they own or how much of our national deficit they own in the form of T-bills and if they ever decide to pull out...... we're done.

That is what the trade deficit has done. That is the reality of it.

Now for inflation.

I speak from the experience my father taught me.

I contract you to build a building for $1,500,000. You go and buy goods to work on it as you go, pay your labor and so on. Now, as you buy your goods you notice the prices have gone up, so you are paying more for the materials and maybe to even to rent or run your equipment.

So a year goes by your done (if you made it that far). You figure out your costs and whoa.... you spent $2 million, you lost $500,000. You come to me and you tell me you lost money..... I laugh and say sorry I am contracted to pay only this.

That is what was happening in the late 70's and early 80's in the construction business. My father worked for one of the biggest contractors in the nation at the time and they went bankrupt (along with many others) because of this. Interest rates went up so fast and without warning that many businesses went bankrupt and whole industries never truly recovered.

It's not a question of "IF", it's a question of when is inflation going to hit.

We can sit there and accept defeat and come up with a 1000 reasons why the trade deficit is good and the national debt is truly nothing..... and we can watch as we lose everything we own, and inflation destroying us. The leaders who are in power want us to believe that all these are ok, because they can stay in power that way.

OR we can start looking for leaders to change things and get our asses in gear and rebuild.

I choose finding solutions and not following pipe dreams and fairy tales. Ichoose wanting a country that is financially free of other countries and is in good economic shape.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-17-2005 at 11:54 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:00 PM   #31 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
BTW China, Japan, Taiwan, Europe can destroy our economy in a matter of hours because of the trade deficits we have with them.

All they have to do is sell all their US currency and debt for fifty cents on the dollar and start demanding payment of the trade debts...... and the dollar would valueless in hours.

Gates, Buffett, Soros, the world's richest men and top economists know this..... They feared in FEB. this year that Asia and these guys were going to do it.

To prevent them from doing it our country has to kiss their asses or face financial ruin...... IT'S A FACT.

Quote:
Gates, Buffett and China Gang Up on Dollar -BL: William Pesek Jr.

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar can add the world's two richest men to its list of detractors, something that's raising eyebrows here in Asia.

Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corp., left no doubt of that, telling television host Charlie Rose ``I'm short the dollar.'' The world's wealthiest man called the record $7.62 trillion federal debt ``a bit scary'' and lamented that the U.S. is in ``uncharted territory'' fiscally.

And he's right. Just ask Warren Buffett, the world's No. 2 moneyman, who has been buying foreign currencies since 2002, citing concerns about the U.S. deficit. The bet is paying off, too. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. reaped a $412 million pretax gain on the trade in the third quarter of 2004.

Gates and Buffett may not be reading from the same playbook as George Soros, though their investments bear some similarities. Financier Soros has long since given up on the world's reserve currency, and U.S. President George W. Bush's competence on economic matters.

Yet the U.S. is managing to run afoul of an even more powerful force than wealthy individuals: the world's fastest growing major economy. China, it seems, has had just about enough of the U.S.'s bickering about its currency policy.

`Reasonable Level'

``Please leave it to us,'' Li Ruogu, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said in Davos, Switzerland, when it was suggested a stronger yuan would help China. ``We are happy and willing to listen, but don't ask us to practice what you say,'' he said.

Huang Ju, who directs China's finance policy as deputy prime minister, threw even more cold water on speculation the yuan will rise. ``We have to maintain the exchange rate at a reasonable level,'' said Huang, who also was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Yet it's Chinese officials further down the political food chain that seem to sympathize most with Gates and Buffett. ``The U.S. should take the lead in putting its own house in order,'' said Chinese central bank adviser Yu Yongding.

It's breathtaking, really, to see the U.S. being chastised by Chinese policy makers. Perhaps it's payback for all the lecturing Treasury secretaries from Robert Rubin in the 1990s to John Snow today have done here in Asia. More likely, though, Chinese officials are getting antsy about their own U.S. dollar holdings.

Group of Seven

If Gates sunk his entire $46.6 billion fortune into U.S. debt, it would only amount to about a quarter of China's holdings. Officials in Beijing buy U.S. Treasuries to maintain their 8.3 peg to the dollar. And its U.S. debt holdings are on the losing end of the dollar's 26 percent drop against a basket of six major currencies since the start of 2002.

A lower dollar increases China's competitiveness, yet it may have too much of a good thing on its hands. While China won't free the yuan for fear of losing control over its economy, a lower exchange rate makes it harder to cool inflation and avoid overheating this year.


The issue is coming to a head days before Group of Seven officials meet in London. There's little doubt the dollar's weakness, and the euro's resulting strength, which will be the center of attention. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet has voiced concern about the dollar.

The Risk

Until now, the U.S. has been able to dazzle currency traders with its deficits-don't-matter poker face. Yet it's clearly losing its ability to keep investors -- and central banks -- in check. Once central banks here in Asia turn on the dollar, the U.S. is in for some very turbulent times as bond yields surge.

The risk can be seen in China's evolving incentives to alter its dollar peg. The U.S. has been using its strength to push China to boost the yuan, thereby reducing its trade advantage. Yet it's the risk of instability and big losses on dollar holdings that may ultimately force China's hand. So it's U.S. weakness, not strength, that's turning heads in Beijing.

Amid all this, Gates and Buffett are warming up to China. It's a risky proposition, perhaps, given its fragile financial system, inadequate transparency, lack of democracy and failure to halt the piracy of goods. In Davos, Gates described China as a ``change agent'' for the next two decades.

In September, Gates's $27 billion foundation received approval from China's foreign-currency regulator to invest as much as $100 million in yuan shares and bonds. Buffett, who visited China with Gates in 1995, made his first investment there in 2003, buying a stake in PetroChina Co.

Still, the U.S.'s biggest challenge isn't keeping Gates or Buffett happy; it's persuading the central banks of China and the rest of Asia not to dump their roughly $1.1 trillion of U.S. Treasury holdings. If they do, the world's two richest men also may be two of its most prescient currency speculators.
LINK:http://www.swissamerica.com/article....n.txt#anchor15

Just a year ago Japan threatened to do it to us because they didn't like our policy.....

Quote:
Japan threatens huge dollar sell-off

Heather Stewart in Tokyo
Sunday December 5, 2004
The Observer


Japan is warning the White House that there will be 'enormous capital flight' from the dollar if the Bush administration maintains its laissez-faire approach to the mounting currency crisis.
Tokyo fears that Japan's strongest economic recovery in a decade could be derailed by the sudden appreciation in the yen against the greenback.

The criticism of President Bush's inaction, by a senior member of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, will be taken as a veiled threat that Japan could start to sell off its multi-billion-dollar holdings of US Treasuries. 'The Japanese government is going to ask for a strong dollar policy; if it continues to fall, there would be enormous capital flight from the dollar,' said Kaoru Yosano, chairman of the LDP's policy council, adding that Japan would be calling on its fellow G7 governments to demand the US deal with the massive fiscal deficit that has helped to prompt the dollar's decline.

Yosano's remarks echoed a warning from a senior Japanese Ministry of Finance official that if the US does not push up interest rates to make the dollar more attractive, 'the one-way sentiment on the dollar will have a negative impact on the flow of capital into the US.' He added that Japan is urging its European counterparts to join a campaign of coordinated currency-market intervention, saying: 'If the dollar is depreciating, we should have coordinated action: that has already been communicated to my European counterparts.'

Like Japan, the eurozone fears that its tentative recovery could be choked off by the fall in the dollar, which European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet has called 'brutal'. However, the ECB has so far dismissed the idea of intervening.

Japan is taking a double hit from the decline in the dollar because the Chinese renminbi is pegged to the US currency, so Japanese exports are simultaneously becoming sharply dearer in both their major markets. Takeo Fukui, the chairman of Honda, admits, for example, that an appreciation of 1 yen against the dollar, if it lasts for more than three months, knocks 10 billion yen off the carmaker's profits.
These people are just making sure the market for their goods will be ready in other places. Once their new markets are set ........... bye bye.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-17-2005 at 12:18 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:13 PM   #32 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Maybe I'm missing something Pan, but if those nations did what you suggest, our economy might be completely destroyed, but there's would as well as they would eliminate the world's largest market. So they lose far more then by keeping the deficits.

That is why they don't do that.

I'm not an economics guy, so I could be completely wrong, but that is how I understand the situation.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:24 PM   #33 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Maybe I'm missing something Pan, but if those nations did what you suggest, our economy might be completely destroyed, but there's would as well as they would eliminate the world's largest market. So they lose far more then by keeping the deficits.

That is why they don't do that.

I'm not an economics guy, so I could be completely wrong, but that is how I understand the situation.

Good point, right NOW. That's why my last sentence stated they are biding their time, waiting for China, Eastern Europe, Russia, and so on to open up and consume a little more.

As the article said China is the the fastest growing consumer nation, once they see that yeah there may be an intial hit, but they have stockpiled enough and they can handle it..... bam, the money is dumped.

Then they come in and just take what they want legally, as we have collateralized everything. They are just collecting debt, no war, no muss, no fuss....... the best part for them is it is all legal. Just like a bank foreclosing on your house, they will be foreclosing on our country.

I pray to God I am wrong, and I hope in 10 years you are laughing at me for having ever believed that this could happen...... I truly wish and pray for that.

However, IMHO the reality says it is just a matter of time before it happens.... unless we can get off our asses and get our leaders to fight back and stop this before it can happen. But it maybe too late to do anything.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 11-17-2005 at 01:27 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 02:10 PM   #34 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Good point, right NOW. That's why my last sentence stated they are biding their time, waiting for China, Eastern Europe, Russia, and so on to open up and consume a little more.

As the article said China is the the fastest growing consumer nation, once they see that yeah there may be an intial hit, but they have stockpiled enough and they can handle it..... bam, the money is dumped.

Then they come in and just take what they want legally, as we have collateralized everything. They are just collecting debt, no war, no muss, no fuss....... the best part for them is it is all legal. Just like a bank foreclosing on your house, they will be foreclosing on our country.

I pray to God I am wrong, and I hope in 10 years you are laughing at me for having ever believed that this could happen...... I truly wish and pray for that.

However, IMHO the reality says it is just a matter of time before it happens.... unless we can get off our asses and get our leaders to fight back and stop this before it can happen. But it maybe too late to do anything.
I still can't see them eliminating a market of 300M people and calling it a good idea.

In fact, I could see that kind of thing causing the next world war.

Those nations doing that here could have a similar effect to what happened in Germany in the 1920s, causing a leader/party to rise (not necessarally fascist; keeping the democracy intact) that would make all the liberals' worst delusions of the present administration look like nothing.

I hate to use that particular comparison, based on the topics discussed here the past week , but I think this is a very valid one (as opposed to the rest )
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 02:31 PM   #35 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Pan, I'm sorry, but to anyone with any training in economics, it is obvious you do not know what you are talking about. I'm done trying to teach you what the trade deficit is all about, its obvious you aren't going to understand. But I would like to point out that aside from clothing/textile and aerospace, industries you claim are dead and dying in the US are just fine. I don't know where you get your information, but if I were you I'd try to find some data to back up my claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Steel..... all but dead
Auto.... dying
Aerodynamics.... dying and very close to death
Heavy equipment...... dying, the Japanese and Chinese own anything that is left here....
Clothing..... DEAD
Electronics..... DEAD
Textile....... on it's death bed
Take a look at Industrial Production Index numbers for the following industries:
Construction Steel:


Consumer Durable Steel:


Motor Vehicles:


Machinery:


Electrical equipment, appliance, and component:


Electical equipment except appliances:


Other electrical equipment and components:


^Some examples of industies you say are all but dead.

But manufactuing is dead you say. Well, lets take a look at the numbers.

Manufacturing:


Durable Manufacturing:


Nondurable Manufacturing:


Lets look at business equipment, thats a good one. If businesses are growing and new businesses are starting they're going to need to buy equipment and someone is going to have to make it. What do the numbers say? Lets look.

Business Equipment:


And finally, a look at the overall production of our economy...

Total Industrial Production:




So as you can see, industrial production is up. Clothing and textiles are down because it is cheaper to make them overseas, but we still hold comparative advantage in many industries in the US, we still employ millions in industry in the US. Overall, our economy is good, and getting better. I would even venture to say its the strongest its been in 5 years. Doom and gloom is no way to go through life, pan. The picture is rosier than you think.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 02:32 PM   #36 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
This is above my head. I need to find my old micro and macro economics textbooks. I have to say that this worries me, though:
Quote:
In its August 2001 annual assessment of the world's largest economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said "the yawning current account deficit raised the risk of a sharp depreciation in the U.S. currency."
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-17-2005, 05:16 PM   #37 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
First Stevo, keep the debate civil there is no need to insult, as I have shown you respect. And no I have never taken a course in economics, but I can read, talk to professors on campus and research. And the fact that I was a stockbroker for a few years in the early 90's means I know absolutely nothing about financial news or reading company reports.

Secondly, how much of that is from foreign owned companies? AK Steel is producing more than ever, but it is a Japanese owned company and the money is going overseas.

Your charts truly show me nothing, like I said are those solely American companies, or do they include foreign owned companies, is that production solely in the US or is that production by US companies but around the world factories? Some commenting I guess for a dunce like me, would have been appreciated.

Thirdly, I guess that just because your charts show I guess manufacturing to be up that GM close to filing bankruptcy, and it was questionable as to whether they would or not until today when the CEO said "No"..... still questionable.


DJ,

If you open markets in Eastern Europe, Asia, Australia, Russia and so on and you are able to increase your profit margin and actually have real money and not IOUs coming in it makes a huge difference.

Plus, not all countries are in this economic war for just greed. The US is weak economically and coming apart, foreign countries and companies whether they like us or not aren't going to carry or debt forever.

There's 4.7 Billion other people in the world, there are great markets that once opened will provide more profit and stable economies.

I'm sorry every indication is that the dollar is riding on very thin ice and all it would take is for the Chinese to start dumping and everyone else following suit. Then foreclosing.

Yes, it could lead to backlash, but really what are we going to do, what can we do? What we're going to go to war because we refuse to pay our debts?

Some may come out chasing pipe dreams and having fantasies that these trade deficits and national debts and the fact that countries like Japan, China, UK own the debt is all ok fine, just shows our economy is strong..... to me and the articles and proof I have shown it shows we are becoming severely and dangerously in a position of being on the losing end soon.

It all comes down to economic freedom for our country and where our money is going, we have no economic freedom other outside entities hold our debts. As shown, Japan can say "we'll devalue your dollar, if you don't change policy"..... China is in far better position to do it also. So even if they do not foreclose, they are in position to dictate our policy to us.

I'm sorry, nothing Stevo has shown has even come close to refuting the evidence I have shown. When you have the richest Americans leaving dollars for Euros and Yuan.... it should not be a joyous event, it should scare the living Hell out of us, wake us up and get us off our asses and working to correct the situation.

Instead we have people saying it is all good and means nothing and they are chasing pipe dreams and not facing reality.

We're cutting education, we're cutting social programs, we're being strangled by our healthcare industry, we have other countries holding more of the US debt than it's citizens and we have proof that countries if they do not like policy will threaten to devalue the dollar.

Is that how you want to live? Under the thumb of an outside entity? Not me. This country can do better. It is time for us to either fight back and regain what we had, or kiss it all goodbye.

I predict we have 5 (maybe 10 years if we are lucky), to change this. I don't see us doing it. The Bushy's obviously are chasing pipedreams and fantasies and not reality. That reality is foreign entities own our debt and can devalue our money at their leisure and have threatened to do so.

Unless things change, these entities will own the GM's , the Ford's, the US Steels, and so on. We'll be their Malaysia, their Phillipines, their cheap labor.

Don't you think the US can do better? Chase pipe dreams if you want, chase the fantasies that foreign entities owning our debts is a good thing if you want..... and watch as we lose everything our forefathers worked for. Watch as the next generation has it worse than we did, and their children worse than them. Watch these other entities blackmail our policies to us.

As long as all these debts pile up, we are paying for those countries to be better educated, have better healthcare, have better standard of livings......
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 06:39 AM   #38 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
a question (i am pressed for time so can only pose it directly)

given that stock has traded internationally since the early 1970s--which means that ownership of public companies/corporations is transnational-and given how the transnational style corporation has developed since then as well (organizations spread over any number of countries, changes in structure prompted by supply pool ideas/technologies, etc.) i am really not sure what a national balance of trade actually measures.
i wonder if the statistical frame used by nation-states to get an index of relative performance is not obsolete...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 07:17 AM   #39 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
I'm not trying to insult you, pan. But your arguements are based on emotion and fear, not fact or data. I understand you are a very passionate person, an thats great, but a little bit of realism goes a long way. Economics is not about passion and emotion, its about rational decisions and arguements backed up by numbers. How is it rational for countries holding US treasuries to devaluate their own wealth? Its not. The only reason china, japan, or anyone else would sell their holdings US currency and for 50 cents on the dollar is if that currency was going to be worth 49 cents on the dollar the next day. Do you really see that happening? No one is going to artificially devalue the dollar out of spite or for the hell of it. Would you sell your investments at half price if you didn't have to?
I know you aren't a bush fan, but your worrying about the economy seems to be driven by your dislike of bush rather than the other way around. You cite reports on the economy from people who aren't economists. Your arguements sound like a Lou Dobbs episode. I actually had an assignment back in college to watch lou dobbs and point out where he was wrong and why. It was a long paper.

Will pointed out something that worries him
Quote:
In its August 2001 annual assessment of the world's largest economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said "the yawning current account deficit raised the risk of a sharp depreciation in the U.S. currency."
But if we look at the value of the dollar vs. the euro since 2001, we don't see a sharp depreciation. We see a mild depreciation (during a recession), but no bank-busting, depression-era devaluation of the dollar.


I agree that budget deficits year after year are bad, after all, that is our hard earned money we get taxed every week on paying for pork-barrel projects and interest on the national debt. Thats not something to be proud of. If we didn't have such a huge national debt the money going to pay the interest could go to a more productive use.

But when you think rationally about the current account deficit you see that the trade imbalance is not going to be the end of the US or her economic might. And thats not fantasy or wishful thinking, its pragmatism. When we have a current account deficit (read: trade deficit) we also have a capital account surplus, which means we have investments coming into the country. A capital account surplus does point to debtor status, but when someone invests in you, of course you owe them. But that is not inherntly bad. Investment is a good thing. Would you rather we didn't have investments coming into the country? Foreigners could invest anywhere, but they chose the US. Obviously, they must have faith they will get a good return, or else they would have invested elsewhere.

When you look at the state of the economy overall, the data doesn't point to us not being able to pay for these investments. We are a dynamic nation. We are inventors and innovators. Our economy is doing well and growing. Maybe I'm too bullish, but nothing I see points to another depression.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 08:35 AM   #40 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Well, Stevo, I guess we agree to disagree and see things sharply differently. (Of course by doing this and not carrying on this debate till we call each other names, insult each other's intelligence more, and spew true hatred at each other, I guess I am guilty of "surrender" as that is all we left seem to do.... according to another thread.)

But I have listed my facts and data and I feel the need to not justify myself or my beliefs any further. I am sure as you have posted you feel deep down the same.

We have shown those who are reading a good debate, they can ask questions and we can answer and refer them to more sources for which we have gotten our info, but I see from this point forward us just going in circles.

No offense to you, because my friend, for the vast majority you showed more respect than many posters on the right do. You took up my views and showed very culpable and extremely good points, as did I. It is up to those on the fence to decide whom they chose to believe.

And it is for time and history to determine which of us.... or perhaps somewhere in the middle to be right about the future.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
 

Tags
bush, foreign, governments, sells


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360