Foreign money lending, debt

[detch01]

laser, let me know when you've finished reading them and I'll consider doing it.



asw

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good point (as usual)

He's a failure at balancing the check book...I've complained about this for some time now...however 9/11, the failure to secure Iraq within 2 years, natural disasters have all played a part in this...and his administrations ineptness to deal with budgets in a frugel manner.

As we are being technical,

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Balancing the check book lies with congress.

[lasersailor184]

Actually, I don't know where my books are right now.  They are probably at home.


But mainly I was just trying to be an ass.  To really understand what is going on, you'd need to take some basic economic classes.





I.E. You don't get in an astrophysics conversation when you haven't passed basic physics yet.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Bush is a disaster. Does anyone but deni that at this point?

Let's not talk about that. Let's talk about Clinton.

[Seagoon]

Hi Holden,

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Balancing the check book lies with congress.

I quite agree, however the President is the one who sends Congress the budget they are supposed to be debating. Additionally, as the defacto leader of the majority party, Bush sets the economic agenda for the Republicans. He certainly works overtime with the party leadership to ensure that the rank-and-file are brought into line with his economic priorities.

Holden, the past few years have been marked by the complete absence of fiscal conservatism in the government. All sectors of the US Gov't have grown, the budget has gotten larger and larger, and ideas that no sensible conservative would have touched 20 years ago, like the prescription benefit, are rammed down the throats of the rank-and-file as "must pass" items. At some point we have to be able to say, "wait a minute, is our fiscal agenda really supposed to be, 'what the Democrats said, only a little less'" Must we keep doing that in order to prove our "compassionate" bona fides?

Hey at this point not even Coulter and Limbaugh are towing the "spend, spend, spend" line anymore. "Big Government Republican" should be an oxymoron.

- SEAGOON

[Saintaw]

2:30 hours... I have to work on that timing

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Give me your address and 80 dollars.  I'll contribute both of my economics books.


Does that help now?

With all due respect. If your are going to be critical about something. Such as the case in point. Then you should at least point out why.


I know I sure as hell am not going to go out and take an economics course.
but I like Im sure many her wouldnt mind hearing or having explained to us in a nutshell what the real deal is.

If your so well educated on the subject and see the eror yet will not explain why it is in error I dont see the point in saying anything to begin with.
Other then to try to get the responces you have thusfar received.

[lasersailor184]

The first major point was about Inflation.  Comparing the amount we spent this year compared to all past years without adjusting is kind of like racing a Model T against a Dodge Viper.


You can tell they didn't take inflation into consideration for a few reasons.  The first would be if they had, they would have SCREAMED it throughout the article.  

The next reason they didn't even mention it was a political reason.  If they had mentioned that they hadn't taken inflation into consideration, it would meant that their results are questionable.  And they don't want to have people thinking they have skewed results.  They just want people thinking Bush = Bad.

The last reason they didn't take inflation into consideration is that it would have made the debt seem minute in comparison.  I'd be willing to bet 100 bucks that they did both, but only published it without inflation.



If you do take an economics course, you'll reach a part called Macro Economics.  In Macro, you learn about the ways the government and the Federal Reserve can change the economy and money flows for the better of the country.

Most of the power comes from Congress in the way of Taxing (cutting or raising) and Government Spending (raising or lowering).  Now, changing the Taxes only has a fraction of the impact that changing the Government spending does.

So here are the general rules for the economy.  When the economy is bad, you want to cut Taxes a little, and increase Government spending a lot.  I know, it sounds absolutely wrong, but the numbers work out and it makes sense if you could read a few charts.

Visa Versa, when the economy is doing well, you want to increase Taxes and cut Government spending.   Sounds contradictory, but until you take an Econ course you're going to have to take my word for it.

[Chairboy]

Maybe I'm just dumb, but it sounds to me like all you're saying is "trust me, economic theory says this will work out good in the end".

[lasersailor184]

It's not theory.  It's comparison of inflation, GDP, government spending and taxes.

They do correlate.

[Tarmac]

Ok, everything you've said is straight out of my 11th grade macro class.

It's also obvious that the article is biased.  I recognize that the inflation numbers they're talking are not adjusted for inflation.  Right about when they wrote "conservative to moderate Democrats said" it was pretty obvious they were trying to mislead the reader.  

So how is owing buttloads of money to the Chinese a good thing for anyone but consumers in the short term -- especially when nobody has any intention of paying back the money owed?

[lasersailor184]

We always owe money to someone.  Often it goes to out of country people.  It really doesn't matter who.  The money always gets paid back.  Because soon we'll be in an economic boom and someone else will be in a recession.  It is just the way it happens in the world.


It actually stimulates the world's economy (not just the debtor and loaner) to buy bonds and loans of a (stabile) country in an economic recession.  It has to do with the power of the currency and how it changes as the economies rebound.

Now, as our economy is going up (which it will) it benefits the people who have the loans and bonds and have bought stocks in the US Dollar.  Ontop of that the money would get paid back just around when the Economy is on the + side of average.

[Bodhi]

Ya know the funny thing here... I work for an individual who is doing very well for himself and he has told me numerous times to make all I can now and be prepared to move it to hard commodities in the future.

Tell me why he is saying that all knowing bbs

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you do take an economics course, you'll reach a part called Macro Economics.  In Macro, you learn about the ways the government and the Federal Reserve can change the economy and money flows for the better of the country.

Well if you are learning that and other socialist fallacies I suggest you ask for you money back.

So here are the general rules for the economy.  When the economy is bad, you want to cut Taxes a little, and increase Government spending a lot.  I know, it sounds absolutely wrong, but the numbers work out and it makes sense if you could read a few charts.

It sounds abosolutely wrong because it is.  Increasing government spending through debt spending screws up the economy in so many ways.  It misallocates resources, of which there is a finite supply no matter how much money the Fed prints off or the government borrows.  Investment wealth is misallocated from enterprises that would supply actual demand, to bs government make-work projects.  Labour is misallocated to said make-work projects, etc.  What's more this debt has to be financed, and it's a gamble that the economy will recover to point where it can pay it off.  All you do by increasing government spending is make the recovery take longer.

And nowhere do you mention that the boom-bust cycle of which your economy has to recover from the bust, is mostly caused by currency manipulation and government intervention in the economy to begin with.

Visa Versa, when the economy is doing well, you want to increase Taxes and cut Government spending.   Sounds contradictory, but until you take an Econ course you're going to have to take my word for it.

I don't think so, instead I'll read books that aren't on your communist economics professors reading lists, and look at how differing economic policies have worked historyically.  Cripes, the US hasn't even begun paying off Reagan's debt and you're sitting here telling people how great supply-side economics is?  Sorry comrade, centrally planned economies are tyrranical, and incredibly inefficient compared to a free market.

[lasersailor184]

Everything you just said (if practiced) would **** an economy quicker then disbanding the country itself.

I figured something like this would happen if I explained why.  


All those practices I explained have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, conservatism, or liberalism.  They are action reaction events.  


Where politics comes into play is whether or not you actually want to do those things.  But whether or not you want to has no effect on what actually happens when you do.




Just an FYI, I had two economics professors.  Both of whom were card carrying Republicans.  But they never brought politics into the equation.