26
   

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

 
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 06:10 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
The solution should, appropriately, be more focused on restoring economic activity (as opposed to extended payments to people for not working) in the short term than in extracting further taxes from a stagnant economy that is also being hobbled by expanded government regulation.

And your proposal to do this is what?
I already outlined it above.

parados wrote:

Reducing government spending isn't going to increase the economy.
That an interesting and wholly unsubstantiuated argument that flies in the face of numerous very analogous historical examples, ranging from the Thatcher correction in the UK to the very recent reduction in the government's share of the economy in Canada and the resulting boost to econonmic activity and public debt reduction that quickly followed. Greece and Portugual provide contemporary examples of the opposite policies of high levels of govertnment prticipation in and regulation of the economy and long-term deficit spending.

parados wrote:

Quote:
No. I believe that unless we alter entitlements, particularly including SS and Medicare we will have a demographically unsustainable burden on our economy - very much as Europe is facing today (though generally less severe).
Something that isn't a problem for almost 20 years unless we don't raise taxes to pay off the trust funds.
I think your mathematics is seriously deficient here. An ever smaller cadre of workers paying into funds to sustain an ever larger group of retirees who are living ever longer after the onset of benefits is a sure formula for exponential growth. (Take a moment to write the differential equation involved and you will see.) The results are already apparent for Medicare which will become insolvent in much less than the 20 years you cite. If we wait 20 years to correct social security the tax increase then required to meet current payments and greater future requirements will be truly crushing. You can do the arithmetic for yourself if you are really curious.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 06:29 pm
@georgeob1,
Actually, differential equation is not necessary to figure out that at current levels of beneficiaries and the baby-boomers beginning to retire, while the work force is shrinking, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that it's impossible to sustain benefits for social security, Medicare, and medical. Heap on top of all that, ObamaCare, and we have a crisis on our hands.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 06:53 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
These problems require more than the self-serving and static arithmetic you appear to favor. I do recognize your inclination to change the question as the conversation takes unfavorable (to you) turns.

Without the arithmetic you will never balance the budget. Balancing the budget REQUIRES arithmetic.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 06:59 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That an interesting and wholly unsubstantiuated argument that flies in the face of numerous very analogous historical examples, ranging from the Thatcher correction in the UK to the very recent reduction in the government's share of the economy in Canada

Do you have a source showing Thatcher reduced government spending at a time of recession and the economy took off?
|
I would point you to the 1937 - 39 time period in the US when government deficit spending was reduced and the economy stagnated.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 07:03 pm
@parados,
Be prepared for armageddon.

Quote:
DJIA futures down over 100 points Sunday night

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In thin electronic trade Sunday night, U.S. stock futures were down by nearly 1% as U.S. lawmakers failed to reach agreement on a plan to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures fell 114 points, or 0.9%, and S&P 500 futures also declined by 0.9%. Gold futures rose by $14.30 to $1,615.80 an ounce.


When the markets open tomorrow morning, it's going to be a slaughter house. Hang onto your cash.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 07:05 pm



Be prepared for Obamageddon
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 07:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It's going to be a long week.

I moved to 40% cash a week ago since I had no faith in them reaching a deal. I figured the small gains if they did make a deal was worth the risk compared to the possible loses.

Down 500 by the end of the week on the DOW? or more?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 07:34 pm
@parados,
Depends. If they approve the increase in the debt ceiling this week, the damage might be less, but it's still going to affect the world economy. How much of an effect it will have is anyone's guess.

Congress wouldn't know what a crisis is until they accomplish destroying our country. They're doing a yeoman's job of it too! Ignorant bastards!

BTW, good move on your transfer to cash. Many people don't do anything, and they just go for the ride. Your action means you're managing your investments; that's a smart move.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 07:57 pm
The GOP-tea party says they don't want any tax increases, but they don't mind being responsible for increasing the cost of everything for everybody.

I wonder if anyone has figured out how much this delay in the debt ceiling is going to cost vs the taxes they don't want? Every half percent in interest is going to add $72,665,000,000/year to the cost that taxpayers will be responsible for paying - eventually.

Japan, Australia, and Hong Kong all show a drop in their stock market, and Europe will follow suit.

They must all love our government's ineptitude.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 08:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
When the markets open tomorrow morning, it's going to be a slaughter house. Hang onto your cash.


I am not sold yet, but this concerns me....I am sure that you CI understand why.

Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) -- This month may be the slowest in the stock market in more than three years.

Trading volume, or the number of shares bought and sold, is down because there are fewer big investors buying stocks. And those who want to buy are worried about the job market and the European debt crisis -- and the budget impasse in Washington. If Congress and the White House don't agree on budget cuts and raising the government's borrowing limit, the U.S. is at risk of defaulting on its debt after Aug. 2.

Daily volume on the New York Stock Exchange is down 22 percent so far in July compared with the same period in 2010, according to data provider FactSet. About 3.7 billion shares have traded hands every day on average, down from 4.7 billion in July last year.

If that continues, July will have the lowest average daily trading volume since December 2007, says Patrick O'Shaughnessy, a research analyst at Raymond James.

Low volume is worrisome because it suggests that few investors are driving the stock market's gains or losses. That creates the risk for bigger price swings. When, for example, there are few buyers, someone trying to sell a stock may be forced to keep lowering the price in hopes that someone will want it -- the same as a homeowner who can't find a buyer for a house.

A lack of volume also indicates that some investors don't believe that stocks are worth buying right now.

"Volume in many respects represents conviction," says Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. "And there's just very little conviction

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wheres-the-volume-Stock-apf-2486403790.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 08:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
That only supports the likelihood of a tsunami in the stock market; the low trade volume shows the big institutions are shy about trades when the future is unknown. Most have figured out how to protect their investments; the smart ones know that some companies with good management will survive this storm. They've proven this over the many ups and downs of the market since the Great Depression.

Finally, it's my personal opinion that if we don't have trust in our economy (investments in our businesses), there is nothing more we can do but to give up. I'm not there, yet. IMHO, I still feel that the US economy is relatively strong compared to the world - including Europe.

It wasn't that long ago that many financial pundits were talking about the Euro taking over the US dollar as the universal currency.

I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe that now.

Look what happened to China. Their major investments is in US treasuries, and several years ago they started buying more Euro bonds because they felt squeamish about too much in US treasuries/securities.

Look what's happened since then to Greece, Ireland, and Portugal - with Italy next in line for bailouts. The US still looks pretty good to this observer.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:21 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
These problems require more than the self-serving and static arithmetic you appear to favor. I do recognize your inclination to change the question as the conversation takes unfavorable (to you) turns.

Without the arithmetic you will never balance the budget. Balancing the budget REQUIRES arithmetic.


Once again you miss the point. I wrote that the required solutions require MORE than the trivial arithmetic you cited. I gave you a compact and very clear statement describing whay that is so and what will be required. Evidently it wasn't enough.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:25 pm
@georgeob1,
And of course you provided the numbers from the Thatcher period that you claimed support you. Laughing
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
That an interesting and wholly unsubstantiuated argument that flies in the face of numerous very analogous historical examples, ranging from the Thatcher correction in the UK to the very recent reduction in the government's share of the economy in Canada

Do you have a source showing Thatcher reduced government spending at a time of recession and the economy took off?
I could easily find one, but life is far too short for me to assume responsibility for the basic education of one so stubborn and mindlessly pedantic as you.
|
parados wrote:

I would point you to the 1937 - 39 time period in the US when government deficit spending was reduced and the economy stagnated.
True enough. However the point is that the New Deal policies up until then merely pumped borrowed money into the economy that temporarily bouyed it up, but failed to stimulate any new private economic activity - very much like the ill-fated Obama stiumulus of 2009. The economy didn't recover until the production demands of the war economy and export demands for weapons and food combined to ignite private sector employment and production. With the rest of the world at war and dedicated to war production we had very few competitors for food and consumer goods between 1938 and 1941.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:28 pm
@georgeob1,
But anyway george... I guess we don't have to worry about default because the mathematics of revenues and bills to be paid is "trivial."
It must be nice to live in a world where you can just make **** up and not have to rely on what is actually in the bank to make payments.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:29 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I could easily find one, but life is far too short for me to assume responsibility for the basic education of one so stubborn and mindlessly pedantic as you.

In other words.. mathematics is trivial and you can't provide any.

As for it being pedantic to want the numbers to add up. Really? That's your argument? WTF... I might be pedantic but so is anyone that ever has balanced a checkbook. Which I guess makes you an idiot.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Be prepared for armageddon.

When the markets open tomorrow morning, it's going to be a slaughter house. Hang onto your cash.


I think it will be temporary.

I believe the market reaction will be much muted by the Republican resistance.The markets would react much more unfavorably to a supine acceptance of the follies Obama and the democrats seek to impose on us. The example of an America reacting sensibly to the economic and debt crisis by reducing expenditures and worrking to stimulate economic growth will provide a much wanted alternative to the creeping disaster overtaking Europe.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:33 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I moved to 40% cash a week ago since I had no faith in them reaching a deal. I figured the small gains if they did make a deal was worth the risk compared to the possible loses.


Cash and Obama are a bad mix. he has every incentive to reduce the value of our currency.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:36 pm
@georgeob1,
Not totally true; the devaluation of the dollar has some advantages; it makes US products and services more affordable to the world marketplace which makes us more competitive. Our balance of trade becomes cheaper.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2011 09:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I agree the market for securities and commodities may get a boost from devaluation.

However, that doesn't help if your holdings are in cash.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 12:20:01