|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
I'm not convinced you have an able grasp of just how much $1.7 trillion is.
US Taxpayers supporting over 1000 bases abroad
Quote:
According to Rumsfeld's estimates, we could save at least $12 billion by closing 200 to 300 bases alone.
Let's mulitply that $12 billion figure by something generous, say 25 (even though 1000/200 = 5), that'd be $300 billion, or just about half of our military spending.
You'd still need to wait six years (that's not including the short-term expenses from shutting down those bases) just to recuperate the $1.7 trillion shortfall from 2009 alone.
Ya-Ta Boy and Fox, I'm not going to let you guys point to the wingnuts and say that they're only in opposition because they'd be in the opposition anyway. The fact is, our budget crisis is dire and ominous. I rather expect this kind of non-chalance from Ya-Ta Boy, who won't be alive to pay off the debt. But the rest of us are too young; we should understand who is paying for this.
|
C'mon. Basic math was not invented at the turn of the 21st Century--they taught us that stuff in the 50's, too. I have a grasp of how much $1.7 trillion is. I agree with you that the deficit is a huge and looming problem, but it's not as bad as you are making it out to be. You yourself point out that it would only take 6 years. It's common for a family to take on 30-year mortgages. We're not talking about a family with mortal income earners; we're talking about the whole country. The USA at that. It will be a hurdle, but not an impossible one. You seem to have faith in the market system; have a little in your country.
I'm a little surprised at you playing the victim (generation thing) card. Every generation inherits the problems the previous generation(s) didn't solve. Nothing new there. We wouldn't still be wrestling with civil rights if my great-grandparents' generation had shot the Republicans who sold out Lincoln's legacy in 1877.
I still plan to beat your generation over the head with my cane and go kicking and screaming to the gas chambers when your generation decides we are just a drag on your economy and a hindrance to the lifestyle to which you wish to become accustomed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm not convinced you have an able grasp of just how much $1.7 trillion is.
US Taxpayers supporting over 1000 bases abroad
Quote:
According to Rumsfeld's estimates, we could save at least $12 billion by closing 200 to 300 bases alone.
Let's mulitply that $12 billion figure by something generous, say 25 (even though 1000/200 = 5), that'd be $300 billion, or just about half of our military spending.
You'd still need to wait six years (that's not including the short-term expenses from shutting down those bases) just to recuperate the $1.7 trillion shortfall from 2009 alone.
Ya-Ta Boy and Fox, I'm not going to let you guys point to the wingnuts and say that they're only in opposition because they'd be in the opposition anyway. The fact is, our budget crisis is dire and ominous. I rather expect this kind of non-chalance from Ya-Ta Boy, who won't be alive to pay off the debt. But the rest of us are too young; we should understand who is paying for this.
|
C'mon. Basic math was not invented at the turn of the 21st Century--they taught us that stuff in the 50's, too. I have a grasp of how much $1.7 trillion is. I agree with you that the deficit is a huge and looming problem, but it's not as bad as you are making it out to be. You yourself point out that it would only take 6 years. It's common for a family to take on 30-year mortgages. We're not talking about a family with mortal income earners; we're talking about the whole country. The USA at that. It will be a hurdle, but not an impossible one. You seem to have faith in the market system; have a little in your country. |
No, it wouldn't take only 6 years: if you cut half of the military budget, it would take 6 years to recover the deficit from 2009. There's still the $9 trillion or so debt owed before 2009.
Yes, its common for a family to take on a 30-year mortgage. But in today's America, the modern family may have a mortgage on their house, and another, slapped around their neck by their government.
And none of this accounts for the looming greying of America: as the baby boomers borrowed on their children's dime, they also had very few children.
| Quote: |
a hindrance to the lifestyle to which you wish to become accustomed |
Yes, pretty much. I wish to have a lifestyle equal or greater to my parents with about equal investment of effort. That's definitely not going to happen for our entire generation with relation to the baby boomer generation.
The Baby Boomers are collectively the most irresponsible generation of Americans ever. This is not about playing the victim. Just look at the numbers: the actions the politicians have taken on behalf of their boomer constituents are plain immoral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, it wouldn't take only 6 years: if you cut half of the military budget, it would take 6 years to recover the deficit from 2009. There's still the $9 trillion or so debt owed before 2009.
Yes, its common for a family to take on a 30-year mortgage. But in today's America, the modern family may have a mortgage on their house, and another, slapped around their neck by their government.
And none of this accounts for the looming greying of America: as the baby boomers borrowed on their children's dime, they also had very few children.
|
I keep forgetting that you switched hemispheres again, so you responded about 12 hrs before expected. (Do entire hemispheres keep kicking you out?)
I agreed with you that it would take approx 6 years to pay off the deficit for this one year alone. The part you are skipping over is that much of the investment of the debt will produce far more than it cost (think highways, high speed trains, wind mills, etc). Your pessimism is getting in your way. It's a shame that the philosophy of small gov't got us into this mess in the first place, but that's something we all have to live with. I just don't see how more small gov't philosophy will get us out of the mess small gov't philosophy got us into.
Us boomers retiring is going to be a problem, but we have the massive immigration policy of the last years to look to to help us out of it. Mostly we need the nay-sayers to shut up for a while so people stop being depressed and get back to inventing the inventions that will get us all out of this mess.
Re: your victim card rant: I never had kids (they're smelly and noisy) but I always had to pay taxes to educate other people's (and contribute to my own salary as a teacher  ). I think I get to go to the head of the line in playing the victim card.
It's rather unfair to paint the whole boomer generation with one fat brush. There were always two groups of boomers...There was the anti-war, fun-loving, creative, high tax paying innovative group; and then there was the G. Bush pro-war, low tax, up-tight, gov't in the bedroom crowd who didn't believe in gov't regulation of business--and we hate the previously enslaved, not blond-enough crowd. It's a little more than unfair to blame all of us for the misdeeds of the anally retentive. Rather than make a massively unfair generalization about something like 100,000,000 people, shouldn't we lay a LOT of the blame at feet of the gov't philosophy that contributed enormously to the problem?
BTW, you omitted the Me Generation--those are the ones who were born after 1960, so were just coming of age when Reagan began teaching the full-blown version of ME, ME, ME. I think we should give them their due. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I still plan to beat your generation over the head with my cane and go kicking and screaming to the gas chambers when your generation decides we are just a drag on your economy and a hindrance to the lifestyle to which you wish to become accustomed. |
The babyboomers and similar ruined the economic future (and social stability, because of how we will pay for your free goodies) of virtually every Western country. To actually have imposed the necessary taxes on yourselves to pay for the goodies you demand later in life would have ended the prosperity at that time. So they made the choice to create ponzi schemes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm taking it that you are of that 'similar' portion of the population. (If libertarians aren't ME, ME, ME, no one is.  )
My first teaching contract (Aug. '74) was for $5770, if I remember correctly. What portion of that should I have saved to be able to retire at an adequate living standard which would necessarily include health care in my declining (I abhor that expression) years?
You like the Austrians. I'm still waiting to hear from you which country has ever used the Austrian ivory tower economic scheme to govern. Accountability is a nice thing. It includes being responsible for how the majority of the population survives while the fat cat entrepreneurs sit back in their fortified castles with armed guards while the peasants pay with their lives, blood and dreams for the mistakes of the rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm taking it that you are of that 'similar' portion of the population. |
My generation has not had an opportunity for screw up the entire economy yet.
| Quote: |
| My first teaching contract (Aug. '74) was for $5770, if I remember correctly. What portion of that should I have saved to be able to retire at an adequate living standard which would necessarily include health care in my declining (I abhor that expression) years? |
20% of gross. At 7% return averaged good/bad years you'd be fine. Even just with 5% muni bonds + tax benefits therein you'd be fine.
| Quote: |
| You like the Austrians. |
I like their analysis of debt, and the impact of debt on growth. I also sometimes agree with their criticisms of fiat money.
| Quote: |
| I'm still waiting to hear from you which country has ever used the Austrian ivory tower economic scheme to govern. |
If you mean which government took Human Action and made it law, none. If you are inadvertently meaning which state has been cautious of debt, quality/quantity of debt etc then virtually all developed states at some level.
| Quote: |
| Accountability is a nice thing. It includes being responsible for how the majority of the population survives while the fat cat entrepreneurs sit back in their fortified castles with armed guards while the peasants pay with their lives, blood and dreams for the mistakes of the rich. |
Fine. Who supports that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's ask the Japanese how their numerous Stimulus Packages have worked out for their economy since their stock market collapse in 1990. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Japan is still to this day issuing more stimulus. The previous stimulus was never enough. Ever. It can't be, cause it can't not work. Paul Krugman will be crying about the failure of stimulus being a function of not enough stimulus even when a quadrillion trillion (squared) has been thrown at "the economy". He can't learn.
Did you see the Reason Mag article on how America is almost perfectly matching Japan's policy response?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133862.html
Here is KD from The Market Ticker (who runs about a 95% accuracy rate in his predictions) on why, mathematically, the stimulus cannot work:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1212-Morning-Madness-Economic-Fundamentals.html
A sample:
| Quote: |
| we have hit the wall because we have spent twenty years pulling forward demand via more and more debt load; the current economic mess is a consequence of what happens when you start to pay interest on interest - debt levels spiral upward until you hit the wall of debt service requirements .vs. income - a mathematical fact that is staring all of these commentators square in the face and cannot be refuted. |
In other words, the marginal productivity of debt is negative.
| Quote: |
| Per-capita income is up 2.95 times from 1981 to 2005, but GDP was up 4.0 times over the same period, a gap of 30%, or almost exactly the GDP contraction up above that I have, for more than two years, cited as what must happen to bring the economy back into equilibrium with incomes, ignoring debt service requirements added since 1981. |
Also in line with my belief that peak to bottom GDP must decline 20%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reason Article:
| Quote: |
| Between 2000 and 2006, average home prices in the U.S. grew by 90 percent, and commercial property values rose at the same rate. |
Property values doubled in 6 years, really? Wow. Surprised more people didn't see this coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It's a shame that the philosophy of small gov't got us into this mess in the first place, but that's something we all have to live with. I just don't see how more small gov't philosophy will get us out of the mess small gov't philosophy got us into. |
With all due respect, that is garbage. George W. Bush was not an embodiment of small government in any sense. Public spending was larger in the Bush years than it was during LBJ's war on poverty, even accounting for inflation (Cato PDF here). He was instead an embodiment of everything I've been railing against in this thread: irresponsibility, fiscal and moral. THAT is why we are in the trouble we are in right now.
| Quote: |
It's rather unfair to paint the whole boomer generation with one fat brush.
|
Yes, that's what's necessary to do when you're talking about an entire generation collectively. There have been baby boomers who have fought valiantly against this fiscal insanity, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton come to mind, but they failed because of the collective irresponsibility of Americans within their age bracket. True.
| Quote: |
| BTW, you omitted the Me Generation--those are the ones who were born after 1960, so were just coming of age when Reagan began teaching the full-blown version of ME, ME, ME. I think we should give them their due. |
Yes, fine, they're no better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand how the productivity of debt is important and I accept the U.S. has lived beyond its means.
But where is Antal E. Fekete's original work? The one essay which I find when googling 'marginal productivity of debt' does not include how this is calculated. In fact, a different post says, it can't be found out. Furthermore, wouldn't an economy tend towards 0 'marginal productivity of debt', not 1., anyway.
Don't different instances of debt also have different amounts of marinal productivity. In a healthy market debt for growth is maybe not very efficient. But to stop a steep decline surely it is far more productive.
Finally, I presume you believe in government regulation to stop irresponsible short-term increases in private debt alongside a commitment by government to pay off debt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But where is Antal E. Fekete's original work?
Don't different instances of debt also have different amounts of marinal productivity. In a healthy market debt for growth is maybe not very efficient. But to stop a steep decline surely it is far more productive. |
I don't know where his work is. The calculation includes subjective (kinda) criteria about type/quality of debt and the like.
| Quote: |
| Finally, I presume you believe in government regulation to stop irresponsible short-term increases in private debt alongside a commitment by government to pay off debt? |
I don't know. It is a complicated situation. 1) stop creating new debt on a historically unique scale. After that, there are any number of things that can be done. None will be fun. But these decisions won't be made and we'll just have a massive sovereign debt blowup sometime soon and then the limitations of the state as mommy will be exposed. But nobody will learn the lesson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
