Support NeoGAF

[Marvie_3]

Oh what the hell Fox!? Seriously?

I wish I could still be surprised by shit like this.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

But wouldn't stagflation mean that incomes are going down, while the cost of goods and services are going up?

 

[codhand]

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.

We have inflation (2%) we also have no growth, we didn't ever as a country have hyperinflation like Germany but we've certainly had periods of high inflation. After Vietnam war we had it, but a money market account would pay 18% so it wasn't a total negative. Or if you were young you could take loans due to pay increases, and therefore eventually pay off those loans.

This is about the point where I concluded you were trolling last time about the Sandy relief workers.

Huh?

 

[Black Mamba]

We have inflation (2%) we also have no growth, we didn't ever as a country have hyperinflation like Germany but we've certainly had periods of high inflation. After Vietnam war we had it, but a money market account would pay 18% so it wasn't a total negative. Or if you were young you could take loans due to pay increases, and therefore eventually pay off loans.

Where are you getting no growth? We had about the same % growth last year through the first 3 quarters and inflation (2%). http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Waiting on the 4th quarter numbers, of course.

18% is not hyperinflation. It's high inflation. Hyperinflation is when the values inflate so fast and so unpredictably that you can't keep up with it at all. Look at the Weimer republic or Argentina in the past for real examples of hyperinflation. 18% is no where near hyperinflation.

When the prices of goods go up by 30% every 5 days, then it's different.

 

[codhand]

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 the economy goes up the deficit goes down, agree. The debt is different and is at 16 trillion. We need surplus to reduce the debt.

 

[Gotchaye]

We have inflation (2%) we also have no growth, we didn't ever as a country have hyperinflation like Germany but we've certainly had periods of high inflation. After Vietnam war we had it, but a money market account would pay 18% so it wasn't a total negative. Or if you were young you could take loans due to pay increases, and therefore eventually pay off those loans.

I swear I left those goalposts around here somewhere...

 

[fallagin]

Oh what the hell Fox!? Seriously?

Unscrupulous as always.

 

[Black Mamba]

If the economy goes up the deficit goes down, agree. The debt is different and is at 16 trillion. We need surplus to reduce the debt.

No, we don't. We don't ever have to pay off the debt. In fact, we haven't in anyone's lifetime who is currently alive. The number is meaningless.

And it's not even really $16 trillion. Not that the number matters, as I said.

 

[codhand]

Where are you getting no growth?

It's not no growth it's 1.5%, you're right, if we go over the cliff we would have no growth. The sequestration cuts would put us into negative growth.

 

[pigeon]

We have inflation (2%) we also have no growth, we didn't ever as a country have hyperinflation like Germany but we've certainly had periods of high inflation. After Vietnam war we had it, but a money market account would pay 18% so it wasn't a total negative. Or if you were young you could take loans due to pay increases, and therefore eventually pay off those loans.



Huh?

When you say that we're in stagflation right now it becomes clear that you're not even taking the basic first step of looking up what words mean on Wikipedia or something before attempting to use them.

 

[CharlieDigital]

If the economy goes up the deficit goes down, agree. The debt is different and is at 16 trillion. We need surplus to reduce the debt.

No, we don't. We don't ever have to pay off the debt. In fact, we haven't in anyone's lifetime who is currently alive. The number is meaningless.

I came to post this.

For as long as this nation has been existed, we've had a debt and it has -- with the exception of a few years -- always been increasing. Yes, from the very first days of George Washington we've been in the red.

What makes you think that this debt ever needs to be paid off? Do you really believe that sovereign debt is the same as personal debt?

 

[RDreamer]

It's not no growth it's 1.5%, you're right, if we go over the cliff we would have no growth. The sequestration cuts would put us into negative growth.

So, cuts would slow growth and even possibly put us in negative growth, but we have to do it because... ?

 

[Black Mamba]

It's not no growth it's 1.5%, you're right, if we go over the cliff we would have no growth. The sequestration cuts would put us into negative growth.

Actually, it's 2.13% through the first 3 quarters. 2%, 1.3%, and 3.1% each respective quarter. No official 4th quarter numbers released.

My point is this is about the same as inflation, so there's obviously no stagflation.

The sequestration cuts, to the best I've seen estimated, represent about 1% of GDP so we'll still be in positive growth with them. It was only negative if that went with all the tax cuts expiring.

So, cuts would slow growth and even possibly put us in negative growth, but we have to do it because... ?

He did say in the future, not now.

 

[codhand]

So, cuts would slow growth and even possibly put us in negative growth, but we have to do it because... ?

I don't want cuts. Stagflation I used incorrectly, I merely meant that we have little growth and inflation.

Actually, it's 2.13% through the first 3 quarters. 2%, 1.3%, and 3.1% each respective quarter. No official 4th quarter numbers released.

Fine, but we agree there are different estimates right?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

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.

We're always able to pay them and always will be. However none of them will ever ask for repayment in full, because those countries know better and know they really have no reason to ask for it back.

Destroying the entire global economy by forcing massive inflation of the US dollar is counter productive to any of those countries' economies. And even if they were nuts enough to ask for it... what exactly happens if we just don't pay them? War? Against the US military? That's something a country wants to do?

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't want cuts. Stagflation I used incorrectly, I merely meant that we have little growth and inflation.



Fine, but we agree there are different estimates right?

Independent estimates? Sure. None of which point to anything close to stagflation.

At least none reputable. Don't send me to some Austrian bullshit.

 

[codhand]

We're always able to pay them and always will be. However none of them will ever ask for repayment in full, because those countries know better and know they really have no reason to ask for it back.

Right as long as China never collects, and we keep buying their goods, everything is fine. What people are saying is that there will never come a point a where people will stop trusting our ability to pay. And I just don't know how I feel about that. House Republicans suck bad.

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.politicususa.com/tim-huelskamp-convinced-sandy-victims-relief.html

Once again, everytime I think the GOP can't get worse....they always ALWAYS prove me horribly wrong.

 

[Black Mamba]

Right as long as China never collects, and we keep buying their goods, everything is fine. What people are saying is that there will never come a point a where people will stop trusting our ability to pay. And I just don't know how I feel about that. House Republicans suck bad.

I explained this, China can't "collect." It gets paid in a timely manner as the bond indicates.

Can a bank just come to you and say "you know that mortgage? We changed our minds, pay us all of it right now!"

Anyway, our ability to pay won't be in question any time soon. We'd have to stop being a powerful nation for that to happen. And if that happens, the entire world is in a shitty state along with us.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Right as long as China never collects, and we keep buying their goods, everything is fine. What people are saying is that there will never come a point a where people will stop trusting our ability to pay. And I just don't know how I feel about that. House Republicans suck bad.

That will be when they stop buying our bonds and it will correlate with a drastic rise in bond yield rates.

This is a pretty easy metric to follow.

 

[The Librarian]

I dare China and India to try to collect their money. What is China gonna do? Send their single aircraft carrier to attack us? lolipops

 

[Chichikov]

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?

Why?
Again, what do you think our budget deficit (or surplus) should be right now and why?

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).

You are of course right, I was just trying to keep it short and simple, maybe I should've said increase in the money supply add to inflationary pressure.

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.

It was not directly related to what I was trying to say, but it's a very important point that I wholeheartedly agree with.

For the most part, inflation is bad for creditor (mostly rich people) and is good for debtor (mostly poorer people) which is why you see powerful economic interest putting inflation as their number one priority above all else.
And by the way, when I say poorer people, I don't mean poor people; take me for example, I'm sitting comfortably in the high middle class bracket, and a 10% annual inflation would allow me to retire about 10 years earlier than I would be able to under current inflation levels.

 

[Chumly]

Right as long as China never collects, and we keep buying their goods, everything is fine. What people are saying is that there will never come a point a where people will stop trusting our ability to pay. And I just don't know how I feel about that. House Republicans suck bad.

China never collects? Wtf are you taking about. Do you know how the bonds work?

 

[Amir0x]

http://www.politicususa.com/tim-huelskamp-convinced-sandy-victims-relief.html

Once again, everytime I think the GOP can't get worse....they always ALWAYS prove me horribly wrong.

This is genuinely abhorrent. This guy should be run out of Washington for even HINTING at a thought as abominable as this one

 

[codhand]

As long as govt is paying the interest, they can't ask for the money back, that's true, just like your mortgage example, even though some mortgage contracts do allow for banks to do that, but if you have a trillion dollars in one year bonds that's coming due and you receive back the trillion, but don't buy more bonds, someone else has to buy it.

Again, what do you think our budget deficit (or surplus) should be right now and why?

About 250 billion dollars annually. After four years, that would pay off 1/16th of the debt. So 64 years; out of debt. I would suggest cutting it directly from the military budget which is a trillion dollars a year, why the troops in Germany, Japan? Korea I get, but...

China never collects? Wtf are you taking about. Do you know how the bonds work?

Collect all at once, ie some sort of doomsday scenario, not that they don't collect now...

 

[Chichikov]

As long as govt is paying interest, they can't ask for the money back, that's true, just like your mortgage example, even though some mortgage contracts do allow for banks to do that, but if you have a trillion dollars in one year bonds that's coming due and you receive back the trillion but don't buy more bonds, someone else has to buy it.

T-bill contract doesn't allow the holder to do anything.

 

[RDreamer]

About 250 billion dollars annually. After four years, that would pay off 1/16th of the debt. So 64 years; out of debt.

So you would support removing 16 trillion dollars from our money supply and economy?

 

[codhand]

So you would support removing 16 trillion dollars from our money supply and economy?

If it means more saving and investing yes.

 

[RDreamer]

If it means more saving and investing yes.

Why exactly do you think it would lead to this? And who exactly is saving and investing?

The ramifications of the private sector losing money for the next 64 years straight is crazy to me. If you don't think that wouldn't completely fuck up the economy then I just don't know what to say.

 

[dabig2]

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


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.

Seriously some cartoon villain shit. I don't even want to know how the vote is going to go for the rest of the relief with these clowns.

Here's a map of the vote stolen from SA:

 

[Chichikov]

If it means more saving and investing yes.

It would mean more saving but not more investing.
Deflation creates a negative incentive to use your money, as whatever you were going to spend the money is going to be cheaper if you wait.

 

[pigeon]

If it means more saving and investing yes.

Saving is definitionally the opposite of investing -- you can't encourage both.

 

[codhand]

It would mean more saving but not more investing.
Deflation creates a negative incentive to use your money, as whatever you were going to spend the money is going to be cheaper if you wait.

I don't see deflation as that bad, it means your money is going up in value. Growth lately seems to create more wealth for the wealthy.

Saving is definitionally the opposite of investing -- you can't encourage both.

I meant after 64 years when you have 250 billion a year to invest..

 

[Black Mamba]

If it means more saving and investing yes.

If you remove $16 trillion of our money supply. how exactly is this going to lead to more investing?

I don't see deflation as that bad, it means your money is going up in value. Growth lately seems to create more wealth for the wealthy.

Deflation is the worst. Do you understand what happens when your money always goes up in value? The ramifications are not pretty.

 

[The Librarian]

Keith Ellison has been appointed as a Deputy Whip in the House Democratic caucus. Yes.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't see deflation as that bad, it means your money is going up in value. Growth lately seems to create more wealth for the wealthy.

I... what? Your problem is that the wealth are getting wealthier, and you think deflation will help that? If your money is slowly worth more each day guess who has the money? The wealthy. Guess who's usually indebted to the wealthy? Everyone else. Guess what that does to your loans? Well, suddenly you basically owe a helluva lot more!

 

[Black Mamba]

Saving is definitionally the opposite of investing -- you can't encourage both.

In the IS-LM model, Saving = Investment.


The problem is that when there is deflation, people don't save. They hoard. These are not the same thing.


Nobody invests or saves when there is deflation.

 

[codhand]

If you remove $16 trillion of our money supply. how exactly is this going to lead to more investing?

When you build a bomb you're not creating capital, when you build a bulldozer you are creating something to move dirt and that's a capital investment which creates wealth. Take 500 billion out of military and spend it on high-speed rails around the country, that creates value.

Deflation is the worst. Do you understand what happens when your money always goes up in value? The ramifications are not pretty.

Like Japan. I don't see why it has to go up or down all the time. Population growth is a problem we share with Japan (although theirs is way worse), but it's the size of California with a population that's half of the US, so maybe it's good that population growth is going down there.

drudgesiren.gif

sharia law

Keith Ellison is the man!

 

[zargle]

Seriously some cartoon villain shit. I don't even want to know how the vote is going to go for the rest of the relief with these clowns.

Here's a map of the vote stolen from SA:

You gotta be flipping kidding me. Not only did the rep for my hometown vote no, both the reps for where I live now and where I work voted no. I hate the midwest.

 

[el retorno]

Keith Ellison has been appointed as a Deputy Whip in the House Democratic caucus. Yes.

drudgesiren.gif

sharia law

 

[empty vessel]

If it means more saving and investing yes.

It would mean an endless depression. You can't have both the foreign sector (negative trade balance) and the government sector taking money from the private domestic sector. All running a government surplus accomplishes is making the domestic private sector run a deficit.

 

[Black Mamba]

When you build a bomb you're not creating capital, when you build a bulldozer you are creating something to move dirt and that's a capital investment which creates wealth. Take 500 billion out of military and spend it on high-speed rails around the country, that creates value.

I don't see what this has to do with removing $16 trillion in the money supply?

Like Japan. I don't see why it has to go up or down all the time. Population growth is a problem we share with Japan (although theirs is way worse), but it's the size of California with a population that's half of the US, so maybe it's good that population is going down there.

You do know what the "lost decade" in Japan is, right?

And I have no idea why population came up...I am very confused.

 

[The Librarian]

You gotta be flipping kidding me. Not only did the rep for my hometown vote no, both the reps for where I live now and where I work voted no. I hate the midwest.

I don't like how all of Kansas was like LOLNO for any type of aid. Asshats.

 

[RDreamer]

When you build a bomb you're not creating capital, when you build a bulldozer you are creating something to move dirt and that's a capital investment which creates wealth. Take 500 billion out of military and spend it on high-speed rails around the country, that creates value.

Ok, so you're arguing that we should give priority to domestic spending rather than military spending, but you're not arguing that we need to take 16 trillion dollars out of our money supply.

 

[codhand]

It would mean an endless depression. You can't have both the foreign sector (negative trade balance) and the government sector taking money from the private domestic sector. All running a government surplus accomplishes is making the domestic private sector run a deficit.

I don't think surplus is the greatest thing, it should be put in a reserve fund, and if we get to a certain level, we cut taxes and let people create their own wealth.

You can't have both the foreign sector (negative trade balance) and the government sector taking money from the private domestic sector.

Isn't that happening now? A trade surplus would be nice, ban walmart and home depot.

I don't see what this has to do with removing $16 trillion in the money supply?

Just talking about capital investment versus military.

 

[The Librarian]

drudgesiren.gif

sharia law

Future Speaker? Yes please.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

And I believe I read that Medicare spending has been going down over the last couple years too.

 

[el retorno]

I don't like how all of Kansas was like LOLNO for any type of aid. Asshats.

next tornado.... j/k we're not assholes.

I love how cantor helped write this bill considering what he said a few years ago about disaster relief needing to be paid for.

Future Speaker? Yes please.

I'm down.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Why are we talking about Germany? It's Asian countries that hold most of our debt: China, Japan, Taiwan, etc. They can't get paid whenever they want, but they can stop buying bonds (not likely, what other financial instrument are they going to park their money in?) or they can dump the ones they do have on the market (resale them). That would probably spike our interest rates on future debt and put investor faith in our government in jeopardy.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't think surplus is the greatest thing, it should be put in a reserve fund, and if we get to a certain level, we cut taxes and let people create their own wealth.

You're not doing a good job of demonstrating why any of this needs to happen.

And I believe I read that Medicare spending has been going down over the last couple years too.

Spending hasn't, but the rise in cost has slowed more than expected the last few years.