US running out of cash? - Page 4 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2011, 10:09 AM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sincraft View Post
ah, a properly brainwashed media lemming. Gotta love it
I'm not sure how I can be a media lemming considering I haven't had TV for 5 years and don't listen to radio.

That is obviously an oversimplification, but my point is that there is still plenty of money here, it is all just sitting on one side of the equation. Since Reagan, the rich/poor gap has exponentially expanded to reflect the fact that the average middle classer is making less and has less. The money is still here, it's just been changing hands from everyone to the 5%. The exponential increase of the 5%'s salaries is proof it's happening.

No one should make 400 times the average salary, or if they do they should be hella taxed for it. This isn't the wild-wild-west free-for-all, it's a democratic society with the aim of providing -everyone- with a high quality of life.
__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja

Last edited by HoboMaster; 07-30-2011 at 09:50 PM.
HoboMaster is offline  
Old 07-30-2011, 08:56 PM   #32 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
seant46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Winterpeg
Posts: 758
Default

As a 19 year-old it really is a depressing thought that the middle class is shrinking and shrinking, here in Canada as well. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the future.
seant46 is offline  
Old 07-30-2011, 11:42 PM   #33 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,716
Blog Entries: 225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
You might want to rethink that "strategy".... The U.S. has become the largest debtor nation there is. Your information is painfully out of date and was once true but not any longer. If Saudi Arabia and China were to call in our debt, we would all be speaking Chinese and wearing Burkas the following day.....
Yeah, when you have a trillion-dollar-per-year deficit, that money is coming from somewhere! Couple of years of that... Well, let's put it this way -- your annual deficit right now is twice Canada's total debt from all the years we were running deficits.

That's why I get a kick out the attitude of a lot of Grecian citizens: "Let's just not pay back the debt. What're they going to do?". So you're running a deficit budget, right? What will you do when no-one will buy your t-bills at any price? Uh-oh. Instant balanced budget.

What's that? You'll just print more money? Can you say "Zimbabwe" ? Can you say "1000% per month inflation"? (Actually I think it's higher than that)

A lot of people have the Canadian NDP (left) attitude that it's all just a word game and you can change the rules just by declaring them to be changed. The trouble is, there are a lot of entities involved in the equation that you don't have any control over. If they stampede for the hills, all the huffing and puffing in the world won't help.
__________________

INNUENDO:
Italian enema.
Donutz is offline  
Old 07-31-2011, 03:10 AM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ratsch-Bumm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Some will argue that WW2 was responsible for the recovery from the Great Depression. They are only partially correct. True, the war effort created economic growth through massive employment, but it was all done through government deficit spending on the war effort; the ultimate social spending program. Additionally, FDR's programs were already restoring the economy in a significant way. The war actually caused the demise of the WPA and the CCC. In a short time, the economic growth as a result of the huge and strong middle class created unprecedented revenue to the government to pay down the debt and invest in domestic infrastructure. Eisenhower a Republican put into action many of FDR's plans like the interstate highway system and affordable housing projects.
I could add to this that there was 'some' reparations from Germany. The whole rocket industry for example. You can read about this in the materials of Potsdam and Nuremberg conferences. Also US got a big market in the dеmolished Europa and Asia when had its own industry and economy undamaged. THIS made a fast money to cover the debts.
Big guys was so excited with the gain from war and now we have what we have.
__________________
|
|

Please don't kick me for bad English
Ratsch-Bumm is offline  
Old 08-02-2011, 02:56 PM   #35 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Some of you should go read Henry Hazlett's Economics in One Lessson immediately. Economic growth and prosperity is not just created by jobs. More often than not, we are blinded by money and currencies (different concepts) and what they actually mean. This is what I refer to as accountantitis.

Think of wealth in terms of tangible goods and serivces. If what is being suggested is true, then all we have to do to have 100% employment and economic prosperity is enlist 100% of the population in the military and have half of them work by digging holes and the other half work by filling them up. Does that make sense? If not, then ask yourself the following questions:

What makes a job value to economy?
Is the role of an effecient economy to create jobs? Rather, could it really be the role of an effecient economy is to eliminate jobs?
What is wealth?
How are the scarce resources available to allocated and what makes this method of allocation efficient?

Last edited by CheeseForSteeze; 08-02-2011 at 03:06 PM.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 08-02-2011, 03:42 PM   #36 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,716
Blog Entries: 225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Think of wealth in terms of tangible goods and serivces. If what is being suggested is true, then all we have to do to have 100% employment and economic prosperity is enlist 100% of the population in the military and have half of them work by digging holes and the other half work by filling them up. Does that make sense?
Straw man argument. While what you're saying is true, no one has suggested that. On the other hand, if we're gonna go reductio ad absurdum, then are you suggesting that an economy with 99% unemployment would be the most efficient? Guess it depends on how you define "efficient". Looked at one way, an economy that provides maximum benefit for 1% of the population while dismissing the rest as irrelevant certainly could be considered maximally efficient.
__________________

INNUENDO:
Italian enema.
Donutz is offline  
Old 08-02-2011, 04:46 PM   #37 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Exactly my point. It's not a strawman argument, it's a logical extension of what is being suggested. Rather, it's a strawman if you take the basis from which that extension is derved to be true. What is being suggested is that we need "jobs and spending". The counter argument I'm suggesting isn't that we need an abscense of these things, but that we need specific qualities in these things and that manual economic management and stimulation will provide the qualities which undermine real development.

Economic effiency is not what is being questioned here. An economy that achieve what another achieves with less employment would be by certain measures, more effecient. What the concern is, rather, economic efficacy.

However, how does an economy become both more effecient and efficacious without undermining itself.

Last edited by CheeseForSteeze; 08-02-2011 at 04:48 PM.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:46 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Exactly my point. It's not a strawman argument, it's a logical extension of what is being suggested. Rather, it's a strawman if you take the basis from which that extension is derved to be true. What is being suggested is that we need "jobs and spending". The counter argument I'm suggesting isn't that we need an abscense of these things, but that we need specific qualities in these things and that manual economic management and stimulation will provide the qualities which undermine real development.

Economic effiency is not what is being questioned here. An economy that achieve what another achieves with less employment would be by certain measures, more effecient. What the concern is, rather, economic efficacy.

However, how does an economy become both more effecient and efficacious without undermining itself.
Meanwhile...

__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja
HoboMaster is offline  
Old 08-03-2011, 10:00 AM   #39 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
True, but jobs in the traditional American sense are a by product of industry. In the "good old days", the wealthy would create companies and factories to actually build things here in this country. That created wealth in itself as well as additional wealth from jobs which fueled consumerism. Henry Ford had the right idea when he said that every one of his factory workers needed to ear enough to be able to afford to buy his product. Now, the uber wealthy have no sense of American loyalty and export our jobs and the wealth of their enterprise outside of our borders.
That is because endless regulations, restrictions and political pandering to special interest groups like organized labor make it uncompetitive to produce things here. The US Consumer is to blame, perhaps? After all, the consumer is the person who wants things cheap.

Wealth is not created or fueled by consumerism. Consumption of ones own wealth shows that prosperity has been achieved, but it does not achieve prosperity. The tail does not wag the dog. Prosperity and wealth, rather, are achieved by a LACK of consumption. Or put another way, the ability to produce more than one consumes. If we didn't biologically require food or water, would we be worse off as a society because farmers would be out of a job?

It is neither the job itself, nor the consumption of what that job produces which creates wealth in society. If what a job produced wasn't consumed, that frees up that portion of labor to be disversified into other areas.


Quote:
America has become a de facto 3`rd world nation who exports most of our natural resources and imports most of our manufactured goods. I see this in the PNW where 99% of our lumber mills have shut down. We still cut just as many trees, but we ship them over seas or up to Canada to be milled into lumber which we then import from Canada. A job still has to have a point and purpose and we all get that. Jobs (or lack there of) are an indicator or byproduct of the health of an economy.
I can't understand how you can reconcile those two statements. In one, you admit that the quality of a job is important as the job existing. The number of jobs, therefore, is irrelevant witout a context of quality. We have mobs of people sitting around performing retail sales services for products we don't make here. These don't serve to reduce the trade deficit which means they don't actually create wealth since we can't export their services to offset what we import. Japanese and Koreans aren't coming here to buy stuff from Best Buy. The only thing we export are treasury bonds.

If we could perform the same services our economy does, would it matter if half the people were employed? This goes back to effiency and efficacy.

Quote:
Again, there has been an out of control upward redistribution of wealth in this country since Reagan. Before Reagan, the average CEO of a company made about 5 to 10 times what a common worker in his factory made. Today, that ratio is something like 400 to 500 times what the average worker makes.
How is this relevant? It's just an appeal to emotion. People make more or less as their salary based on their preceived value. CEO's are paid by the board of directors in publically traded corporations. They make these salaries because people continue to patronize their companies through consumption or through investment. These, despite the protests to the contrary, are votes of confidence in paying executive board members large salaries. Where do most of these votes come from? The middle/working class people who make (purportedly) 1/400th to 1/500th of his salary.


Quote:
A job enables a member of society to be self reliant and contribute back into the society and economy through takes, labor and consumerism. Without jobs, there is no domestic economy.
A job may allow a person to be self-reliant, but that is not its function. But you hint at a more important concept here. If a job is something that provides something another consumes, then what is that dictates which jobs are needed by society?


Quote:
No, but jobs are the byproduct of an efficient economy. If there are no jobs to be performed, that is an indicator that no actual economic activity is taking place.
If there are no jobs to be performed, or if no jobs are being performed? If four men can do the work of four, does the fourth not working matter?

A reduction in the amount of jobs would be indication of effiency. It only makes sense. Who is more efficient, a group of 5 carpenters who can frame a house in 10 days or a group of 4 who can frame a house in 10 days?


Quote:
Yes and no. Certainly eliminating superfluous jobs helps maximize profits but this can go too far (and has) when you eliminate so many jobs that it kills domestic consumerism, then the system has begun to cannibalize itself. It is really all about moderation and this is something we used to get. Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) was known as the "trust buster" because he saw the damage that uncontrolled Autocracy did to democracy and in fact in the end undermined the strength of free market capitalism. (too much of a good thing perhaps?.....)
Again, we can't obssess with the idea of consumption being needed to patronize production. A commonly used analogy is a small farming community that produces everything it needs. Everyone eats slightly less than they produce except for one member who eats the aggregate balance. Obviously, this means he has to consume more than he produces. If he suddenly were to be removed from the economy, would the economy fall apart because he's no longer there to provide consumption to patronize their production?
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 08-03-2011, 10:06 AM   #40 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
baldylox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 3,114
Default

Those of you who are complaining about 3% inflation have no idea what you are talking about. Inflation is by design. If you have a situation where there is deflation, everyone holds their money instead of reinvesting into projects that create jobs. That inflation is a little cattle prod to induce the rich to reinvest their money in something that will return more than 3%. The jobs that are created give the rest of us a chance to get rich. During the mid and late 70s, inflation in the US was well over 10% annually.
__________________

Last edited by baldylox; 08-03-2011 at 10:19 AM.
baldylox is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums