• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's this bullshit on foxnews.com claiming the fiscal cliff deal adding $329 billion to the deficit?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/04/truth-about-obama-tax-fake-out/

I remember reading something explaining why articles like this are bs but I can't find it...

It's correct. And it wasn't nearly enough.

(What you're looking for is to note that the score is calculated against a base that includes the tax raises that went into effect on Jan. 1. So the fiscal cliff deal is really just a large tax cut plus some spending. The irony is the GOP complaining about (and many of its members voting against) a large tax cut.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-...-to-the-deficit-over-the-next-10-years-2013-1
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
That makes sense. It is a tax cut because they waited until taxes increased first. If it was passed before January 1st it would have reduced the deficit by increasing taxes on the rich. Gotcha.
 

codhand

Member
If China, India, Germany etc., want to collect on their bonds, and we have a huge deficit, we won't be able to pay them, while this won't happen in the short term it is more likely to happen as time goes on, money is just paper as we often discuss, if we only print, the paper has no value. I agree that spending is a good solution during recessionary periods, but it is not a permanent solution.
 
It adds to the deficit because when the plan was put into place all of the tax rates were raised. All of the tax cuts were gone after the new year. This plan lowers taxes for most people, and thus adds to the deficit.

Of course Fox news isn't going to admit specifically to their reader-base that tax cuts add to the deficit and that's why. They'll just use the big scary deficit number and tell people that it's a problem and this contributes.
That makes sense. It is a tax cut because they waited until taxes increased first. If it was passed before January 1st it would have reduced the deficit by increasing taxes on the rich. Gotcha.
WTF AMERICA?! God damn the media over there. Damn it to hell! I hate myself for continuing to read this thread.
 

Chichikov

Member
If China, India, Germany etc., want to collect on their bonds, and we have a huge deficit, we won't be able to pay them, while this won't happen in the short term it is more likely to happen as time goes on, money is just paper as we often discuss, if we only print, the paper has no value.
Money is devalued the more there is of it, no doubt about it, here's the thing though, there's a pretty good measure on how much devaluation is going on and it's called inflation.
The inflation is stupidly low right now, what makes you think that our deficit is too big?

Or to ask it differently, what do you think deficit should be right now?

p.s.
What China, India and Germany want is irrelevant, they can't decide to "collect" their bonds all of a sudden.
 

codhand

Member
Money is devalued the more there is of it, no doubt about it, here's the thing though, there's a pretty good measure on how much devaluation is going on and it's called inflation.
The inflation is stupidly low right now, what makes you think that our deficit is too big?

Or to ask it differently, what do you think deficit should be right now?

We should work on reducing the deficit now, but the reason to put it off is because the drastic cuts needed, would kill the economy, so we need to put it off until the economy recovers and then strongly address it. When that will be, who the hell knows?
 
the drastic cuts needed, would kill the economy, so we need to put it off until the economy recovers and then strongly address it

if they'll kill the economy during a weak recovery, who's to say they won't kill the economy during a boom?
 

RDreamer

Member
If China, India, Germany etc., want to collect on their bonds, and we have a huge deficit, we won't be able to pay them, while this won't happen in the short term it is more likely to happen as time goes on, money is just paper as we often discuss, if we only print, the paper has no value. I agree that spending is a good solution during recessionary periods, but it is not a permanent solution.

None of this makes any sense.

If they want to collect on their bonds? Um... they have been. They get their money when we told them they will.

If we have a huge deficit we won't be able to pay them? Um.. we've been paying them with "huge deficits" for a while now. How does a deficit prevent us from paying them?

We already print, yet the paper has value.

What exactly is your solution to growing an economy with an increasing population base that doesn't involve spending and won't lead to deflation, exactly?

If you're saying we can't deficit spend from here on into eternity, perhaps, but I'm not sure anyone is saying that.

Seriously, though, this post is nonsense. You should go read up on some things.
 

codhand

Member
None of this makes any sense.

What exactly is your solution

Canadian health care system, military spending cuts, that's a good start, let's not forget health care costs are the worst problem we face.

Seriously, though, this post is nonsense. You should go read up on some things.

Cmon now. It's not nonsense, in fact I agree with most of what you said. We do have a two trillion dollar gross national product, that helps us pay. If you make the minimum payment on a cc, your debt will place you out of paying the even the minimum. Forcing bankruptcy. I've read plenty, to suggest otherwise is rude.
 
Money is devalued the more there is of it, no doubt about it

That's not true, though. Currency can only be devalued by its increase if the goods and services available for sale in the currency are held steady (or decrease). Likewise, even a constant supply of currency can become devalued if the goods and services offered for sale in the currency decrease (prices rise). A constant supply of currency can rise in value if the goods and services offered for sale in the currency increase (prices fall).

As well, if a currency is held steady and the population increases, the currency increases in value (less currency per users).

This is why the money supply must grow over time as an economy and population grow. Such growth in the supply does not devalue the money. Indeed, if it did not grow, the money would increase in value to intolerable levels (deflation).

Economically powerful interests fear inflation because it devalues pools of money. Because economically powerful interests are also politically powerful, that fear of inflation results in a government that persistently under spends and keeps the economy throttled instead of optimized.
 
Why do so many liberals turn past democratic presidents into these mythical made men who don't give a darn about anything. First it's FDR, then it's LBJ, and now Clinton.

Wait . . . I take back what I said earlier.

Although that was written with Civil War debts in mind, former President Bill Clinton said in the summer of 2011 before the last debt ceiling debate that he would invoke the [14th] amendment to raise the debt ceiling if he were still in office, "and force the courts to stop me."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/can-a--1-trillion-coin-end-debt-ceiling-crisis--175346781.html

Bill don't give a fuck.
 

RDreamer

Member
Canadian health care system, military spending cuts, that's a good start, let's not forget health care costs are the worst problem we face.

And it's my understanding that Canada too has had deficit spending, especially as of recently and a growing debt.

I'm all for the things you said, but that's just more efficient and better use of resources, which I support. The money supply, however, should grow over time. You want some inflation, because that helps an economy (deflation makes people hold onto money... inflation makes them try and use it). How do you get that small amount of inflation? Growing the money supply. How do you grow the money supply? Spending. That's precisely what I was asking you.


Cmon now. It's not nonsense, in fact I agree with most of what you said. We do have a two trillion dollar gross national product, that helps us pay. If you make the minimum payment on a cc, your debt will place you out of paying the even the minimum. Forcing bankruptcy. I've read plenty, to suggest otherwise is rude.

Government debts cannot be compared to a credit card. That's why what you're saying is at least slightly nonsense.

Our government can't go bankrupt unless we choose to for some stupid reason. We cannot run out of dollars to pay, because we create them. The problem might come in with creating too much money supply and causing hyper inflation. The problem is not our inability to "pay the minimum," though.
 
Wait . . . I take back what I said earlier.

Although that was written with Civil War debts in mind, former President Bill Clinton said in the summer of 2011 before the last debt ceiling debate that he would invoke the [14th] amendment to raise the debt ceiling if he were still in office, "and force the courts to stop me."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/can-a--1-trillion-coin-end-debt-ceiling-crisis--175346781.html

Bill don't give a fuck.

And Obama shouldn't either. He needs to fucking realize that NO MATTER WHAT these people will ALWAYS have undying hatred for him. So what if they throw a bitch fit? Let them.
 
Woudln't a defecit reduction happen in a booming ecomemy due to increased tax revenue anyway?

Yes. The best cure for a deficit in a depressed economy plagued by deficient aggregate demand is more net spending. After all, it is government spending that funds tax payments. And it is the circulation of money that generates income. Depressed economies do not circulate money and reduce incomes, thereby reducing tax receipts. Saved money does not create income that can become a tax payment and an economy with deficient demand encourages saving rather than spending.
 

codhand

Member
What I'm suggesting is spending now, reduction later, if what you are saying is never worry about the spending then I disagree there.

Nationalizing health care would be a great start. Cutting out ridiculous military spending another.

Just because a household can't print money doesn't make my analogy some wonky facebook post.

The best cure for a deficit in a depressed economy plagued by deficient aggregate demand is more net spending.

Saved money does not create income that can become a tax payment and an economy with deficient demand encourages saving rather than spending.

I agree.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
p.s.
What China, India and Germany want is irrelevant, they can't decide to "collect" their bonds all of a sudden.

Honestly asking here, but why not? It's always been presented in a way in the mainstream media that they could and I believed them. What would the proper process be?
 

Gotchaye

Member
Honestly asking here, but why not? It's always been presented in a way in the mainstream media that they could and I believed them. What would the proper process be?

They don't buy at-will bonds from the US. They buy bonds with specified pay-out dates. You could go buy a 5-year bond right now, and you would get paid in five years.

This sounds liquidity-neutral if the government spends what you gave it, but in practice there's a market in debt such that if you do want to convert a bond to cash 2.8 years later, you can sell your de facto 2.2 year bond for something close to its present value. So it increases the money supply. This last is probably the main thing codhand is missing, too.
 

codhand

Member
Honestly asking here, but why not? It's always been presented in a way in the mainstream media that they could and I believed them. What would the proper process be?


Hyperinflation is a real thing. "Pay me 100% to buy the bond.", is how it would look, like in Greece.

Bonds have different dates as mentioned above, countries could decide not to buy or ask for money to buy them, or we could start printing money wildly.
 
Listened to an interesting podcast talking about how Republicans, if they were to go balls to the wall, could try to lock up the presidency by splitting electoral votes among the districts:
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2013/01/counting_electors.html

One new thing that I learned is that it is not just gerrymandering that is the Democrats problem with the House, it is also just the natural distribution of Democrats clustered in urban areas. So I guess if you just had a computer program that drew districts, the GOP would still end up with an advantage.
 

RDreamer

Member
Hyperinflation is a real thing. "Pay me 100% to buy the bond.", is how it would look, like in Greece.

Again, you should probably read up on some things. You're bringing in examples that do not fit what you're talking about. First credit cards and now Greece.

Our federal government is a currency issuer and not a currency user. There is a rather large difference between the two things and how they function. Greece was a currency user.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Hyperinflation is a real thing. "Pay me 100% to buy the bond.", is how it would look, like in Greece.

Yes, but this would only be a problem for the US to the extent that interest rates were very high because of expectations of hyperinflation. And the problem there would not be the interest rate, as such, but rather the likelihood of hyperinflation. Greece's rates were not high because of fears that the Euro was going to massively inflate.
 

pigeon

Banned
Honestly asking here, but why not? It's always been presented in a way in the mainstream media that they could and I believed them. What would the proper process be?

What they could do is sell their bonds on the bond market. This would lower the price of American debt, raising yields, which would conceivabky make borrowing more expensive. As a side effect it would destroy China and India's economies by weakening the dollar and making exports to America less lucrative, which might help one understand why they have such big holdings of American debt in the first place.
 
One new thing that I learned is that it is not just gerrymandering that is the Democrats problem with the House, it is also just the natural distribution of Democrats clustered in urban areas. So I guess if you just had a computer program that drew districts, the GOP would still end up with an advantage.

It shouldn't though, because of the principle of one person one vote. The number of congressional districts (House seats) a state has relative to others is based on population. So more populous states have more seats. Likewise, within a state, districts are supposed to contain roughly equal populations (per the SCOTUS). The geography is supposed to be irrelevant. Packing a bunch of people in a city just means that a district is supposed to be geographically small.
 

pigeon

Banned
Hyperinflation is a real thing. "Pay me 100% to buy the bond.", is how it would look, like in Greece.

Bonds have different dates as mentioned above, countries could decide not to buy or ask for money to buy them, or we could start printing money wildly.

This post demonstrates a apparently complete ignorance of the causes and effects of hyperinflation.
 

Gotchaye

Member
It shouldn't though, because of the principle of one person one vote. The number of congressional districts (House seats) a state has relative to others is based on population. So more populous states have more seats. Likewise, within a state, districts are supposed to contain roughly equal populations (per the SCOTUS). The geography is supposed to be irrelevant. Packing a bunch of people in a city just means that a district is supposed to be geographically small.

No, there's a point there. If cities are 90% Democratic and the countryside is 60% Republican, then pretty much any obvious automatic scheme for drawing districts is going to produce districts with large Democratic majorities in the cities and districts with small Republican majorities in the country. There's plausibly a Voting Rights Act objection to be made, though.
 

codhand

Member
This post demonstrates a apparently complete ignorance of the causes and effects of hyperinflation.

If Greece hadn't joined the Euro they would've been able to print their way out, true, and we as a country will probably do the same, I just feel standards of living would be negatively affected.

Again, you should probably read up on some things. You're bringing in examples that do not fit what you're talking about. First credit cards and now Greece.

I think my examples do fit, you can disagree but why tell me "read some things" it's just rude.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Economically powerful interests fear inflation because it devalues pools of money. Because economically powerful interests are also politically powerful, that fear of inflation results in a government that persistently under spends and keeps the economy throttled instead of optimized.

But why would economically powerful interests care about the value of their money? Either way if the value is high or not, they can profit.
 
boehner.png


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/obama-congress/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 

Gotchaye

Member
But why would economically powerful interests care about the value of their money? Either way if the value is high or not, they can profit.

Because a lot of their wealth is tied up in assets denominated in dollars. Government bonds and private loans (to banks in the form of deposits or otherwise) account for a whole lot of wealth. Inflation devalues those assets. It hits the wealthy relatively hard because a larger share of their net present value is in these things - many poor people have only a fraction of one year's income in dollars, while many rich people have multiple years' income in dollars. Middle-class and below people typically also have a huge amount of debt, denominated in dollars, and so limited inflation actually makes them better off as their debt is devalued. But this is zero-sum, and if your student loan debt is devalued, so is the corresponding asset on a bank's balance sheet.
 

pigeon

Banned
If Greece hadn't joined the Euro they would've been able to print their way out, true, and we as a country will probably do the same, I just feel standards of living would be negatively affected.

There is no hyperinflation in Greece. Nor is hyperinflation particularly characterized by rising bond yields as opposed to rising prices of all sorts. That's kind of what I mean when I say your post suggests no familiarity at all with what hyperinflation actually means.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yes. The best cure for a deficit in a depressed economy plagued by deficient aggregate demand is more net spending. After all, it is government spending that funds tax payments. And it is the circulation of money that generates income. Depressed economies do not circulate money and reduce incomes, thereby reducing tax receipts. Saved money does not create income that can become a tax payment and an economy with deficient demand encourages saving rather than spending.

That's actually pretty well explained. A little easier than a lot of your post. I like this to the point explanation.
 

codhand

Member
There is no hyperinflation in Greece. Nor is hyperinflation particularly characterized by rising bond yields as opposed to rising prices of all sorts. That's kind of what I mean when I say your post suggests no familiarity at all with what hyperinflation actually means.

If they printed their way out they would risk hyperinflation, instead they're putting their money in foreign banks; Germany, France. Rising yields cost the Government more money.

In the 80's we had hyperinflation with President Ford, Nixon admin had price controls. Vietnam war, caused excessive spending; The Great Society, HUD, Medicare...
 

RDreamer

Member
I think my examples do fit, you can disagree but why tell me "read some things" it's just rude.

I'm not trying to be rude. It's just sovereign debt is factually not like credit card debt at all, nor is our debt anything like Greece's. I mean, I guess you're free to think these things fit, but they wouldn't be correct.
 

pigeon

Banned
If they printed their way out they would risk hyperinflation, instead they're putting their money in foreign banks; Germany, France.

There is no strong correlation between printing money and hyperinflation -- lots of countries have printed lots of money with no serious consequences. Hyperinflation is caused by a fear that the issuing government will cease to function. Essentially, it's an expectation-based reaction to a potential infinite negative demand shock caused by the collapse of the taxing authority.
 

Gotchaye

Member
If they printed their way out they would risk hyperinflation, instead they're putting their money in foreign banks; Germany, France. Rising yields cost the Government more money.

In the 80's we had hyperinflation with President Ford, Nixon admin had price controls. Vietnam war, caused excessive spending; The Great Society, HUD, Medicare...

Are you thinking of stagflation?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I seldom get really pissed off at the stuff I read these days, but this one really tripped something in me.

Gulf Coast Lawmaker Votes Against Sandy Relief

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), whose Mississippi district is situated on the Gulf Coast, was one of 67 Republicans on Friday to vote against a $9.7 billion relief package to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Mississippi’s Fourth Congressional District, which Palazzo has represented since 2010, includes the city of Biloxi, one of the most heavily damaged communities in the region by Hurricane Katrina. Congress quickly passed an initial $10.5 billion relief package in the immediate aftermath of Katrina in September of 2005. Palazzo’s predecessor, former Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), supported that legislation.

The Sandy relief legislation passed overwhelmingly on Friday, with the only “no” votes coming from Republican members.
I know he wasn't there to vote for Katrina relief. But god damn he should look around a bit and realize the affect those kind of votes can have on people's lives. These are not good people.
 

Gotchaye

Member
We're talking about a long period of time, it was both at different points. Right now I'd say we are in a period of stagflation.

When was it hyperinflation? I can't find an annualized monthly inflation rate higher than 15% since 1960 (not that this obtained in 1960, but just that I didn't look back any further).
 
If China, India, Germany etc., want to collect on their bonds, and we have a huge deficit, we won't be able to pay them, while this won't happen in the short term it is more likely to happen as time goes on, money is just paper as we often discuss, if we only print, the paper has no value. I agree that spending is a good solution during recessionary periods, but it is not a permanent solution.

This is not how bonds work. It isn't like when you loan your friend $5 and you collect when you feel like it.

These bonds have specific dates at which they pay money to the bondholders. No one can simply say "fuck it, gimme my money back right now" and get it. Ever. This doesn't work with municipal bonds, corporate bonds, mortgages, or anything else and it sure as hell doesn't happen with treasury bills.

Now, the gov't can buy back the bonds if it so wishes at a price (The Fed does just this in open market operations). But no one can demand it.


I'd also like to point out something keep forgetting about the deficit:

As the economy gets better the deficit automatically shrinks (without new legislation) for 2 reasons.

1. tax revenues go up as people get back to work and wages rise
2. better economy leads to less wellfare and thus a reduction in gov't spending

And a third reason that isn't automatic
3. no need for stimulus therefore less temporary spending

If we are at 5% unemployment, the gains in revenues and reduction in automatic welfare transfers + reduction in stimulus would greatly reduce our deficit. Add in the tax increases we just got (and some more we might get) and reduction in military expenditures coming regardless (no war) and our deficit will be very manageable in the coming future IF we can contain health care costs.
 
We're talking about a long period of time, it was both at different points. Right now I'd say we are in a period of stagflation.

Right now I'd say you're wrong. And we've never had hyperinflation.

Stagflation requires high inflation. Our problem right now is we have so little inflation.

We're still more at a threat of deflation than hyperinflation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom