114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 05:52 pm
@maporsche,
I'm in agreement with you on that $700 billion. All of us and our children will be saddled with all this debt which will eventually become inflationary.

We must remember, however, that all the spending is not debt; they are loans that will be paid back to the treasury with interest. Many of the big banks have already paid back the loans, and many are ready to pay back those loans in the near future.

The stimulus plan is not all negative; a good portion of it will probably minimize and/or reduce the economic crisis to some degree. Extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps is necessary to provide people with some means to shelter and feed themselves - including their children.
I don't see this as a bad thing.

Where I differ with Obama is the expansion of other social programs at a time when tax revenues are dropping, and the primary goal of the administration should be to stop the bleeding of jobs and increase job opportunities.

If they come up with a good universal health care system that actually ends up covering everybody while reducing cost will be the number one achievement of this administration. Our country already spends 30% more per capita on health care than all the countries that provides universal health care, and costs in the US continues to rise at untenable rates every year. More companies are dropping health care or are increasing the employee's share for benefits. Those losing jobs are also losing their health insurance benefits. This cannot continue. Whatever compromise that must be made (by all) will be the most difficult issues to be faced by those planning this program.

I wish them well.





Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 06:40 pm
WATCH THIS

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:


I wish them well.

I hope they fail, so they will quit destroying the country. I wish the country well instead of them.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm in agreement with you on that $700 billion. All of us and our children will be saddled with all this debt which will eventually become inflationary.


Without a doubt it will be inflationary, very inflationary.

Quote:

We must remember, however, that all the spending is not debt; they are loans that will be paid back to the treasury with interest. Many of the big banks have already paid back the loans, and many are ready to pay back those loans in the near future.


Understood.

Quote:

The stimulus plan is not all negative; a good portion of it will probably minimize and/or reduce the economic crisis to some degree. Extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps is necessary to provide people with some means to shelter and feed themselves - including their children.
I don't see this as a bad thing.


I agree, I was never against this portion of the stimulus. Personally, I think we should have allowed all the banks/car companies to fail, and instead have invested those billions in unemployment and re-education classes for ALL displaced workers. Instead, we've invested upwards of 1 trillion dollars in banks and car companies and the only people we've really helped are the employess of THOSE companies. There are 600,000 laid off every month and there's no bailout money going their way.

Quote:

Where I differ with Obama is the expansion of other social programs at a time when tax revenues are dropping, and the primary goal of the administration should be to stop the bleeding of jobs and increase job opportunities.


I SOOOOOO agree with you here. Social spending/programs should be separate from the stimulus bill. It/they should be voted on and debated OUTSIDE of the financial crisis debate.

Quote:

If they come up with a good universal health care system that actually ends up covering everybody while reducing cost will be the number one achievement of this administration. Our country already spends 30% more per capita on health care than all the countries that provides universal health care, and costs in the US continues to rise at untenable rates every year. More companies are dropping health care or are increasing the employee's share for benefits. Those losing jobs are also losing their health insurance benefits. This cannot continue. Whatever compromise that must be made (by all) will be the most difficult issues to be faced by those planning this program.


I too support universal health care, but only if they pay for it. I'm ******* tired of deficit spending.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 08:22 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm in agreement with you on that $700 billion. All of us and our children will be saddled with all this debt which will eventually become inflationary.


Without a doubt it will be inflationary, very inflationary.

To address a point in regard to ci's posts. He is now shifting his positions. He is now claiming he is opposed to some of Obama's policies, moreso now than before, and he is also now claiming the spending is inflationary, which is also a new position for ci. Interesting how the shifting sands blow, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:00 am
Hasn't become inflationary yet, which is odd, seeing as everyone knows the liabilities are out there and inflation should be shooting upwards according to you fellows -

Quote:
So-called core producer prices, which exclude food and energy costs, fell 0.1 percent, indicating broad pressure on prices because of lower demand across the economy.


Can't we wait until inflation is above zero to start complaining about it?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, It's not odd; all the other signs of inflation are not there. Payroll and pay increases are dropping, and most people don't have any cash to splurge. Banks are watching too closely who they give loans to. I applied for a Capital One credit card this week, and they refused me. My FICO score is over 800, and we have no debt!

They're really getting stupid with who they give credit to.
It's probably because they know they won't earn any interest on our account.

The reason I applied for the Capital One credit card is very simple; they don't charge the extra fees like all the other credit cards when you use it in foreign countries to get cash from an ATM or make purchases.

Go figure.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:41 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, It's not odd; all the other signs of inflation are not there. Payroll and pay increases are dropping, and most people don't have any cash to splurge. Banks are watching too closely who they give loans to. I applied for a Capital One credit card this week, and they refused me. My FICO score is over 800, and we have no debt!

They're really getting stupid with who they give credit to.
It's probably because they know they won't earn any interest on our account.

The reason I applied for the Capital One credit card is very simple; they don't charge the extra fees like all the other credit cards when you use it in foreign countries to get cash from an ATM or make purchases.

Go figure.


That's not stupid, it's smart on their part...

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Smart? How? So, they give credit to the worst offenders? LOL
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:45 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Smart? How? So, they give credit to the worst offenders? LOL


Of course they do. That's how they make money. As you noted, they don't make much money off of you at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hasn't become inflationary yet, which is odd, seeing as everyone knows the liabilities are out there and inflation should be shooting upwards according to you fellows -

Quote:
So-called core producer prices, which exclude food and energy costs, fell 0.1 percent, indicating broad pressure on prices because of lower demand across the economy.


Can't we wait until inflation is above zero to start complaining about it?

Cycloptichorn


Are you suggesting that no significant inflation is likely???? The facts concerning the huge increase in the money supply already done very clearly tell us otherwise. The market for long-term treasury bills has already required a higher interest rate, and government borrowing is going to increase very fast in the coming year.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:48 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hasn't become inflationary yet, which is odd, seeing as everyone knows the liabilities are out there and inflation should be shooting upwards according to you fellows -

Quote:
So-called core producer prices, which exclude food and energy costs, fell 0.1 percent, indicating broad pressure on prices because of lower demand across the economy.


Can't we wait until inflation is above zero to start complaining about it?

Cycloptichorn


Are you suggesting that no significant inflation is likely???? The facts concerning the huge increase in the money supply already done very clearly tell us otherwise. The market for long-term treasury bills has already required a higher interest rate, and government borrowing is going to increase very fast in the coming year.



I do believe some inflation is likely; however, we have not yet begun to see it.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 11:48 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Are you suggesting that no significant inflation is likely????

I don't think it is, and neither does the bond market. Just look at the yields on treasury notes compared to inflation protected treasury notes. They're 2.7% vs. 1.25% on five year notes, and 3.68 vs 2.125% on ten year notes. In both cases, the difference reflects the rate of inflation expected by traders on the market.

With that in mind, let me turn your question around on you: Do you truly expect inflation of greater than 1.45% over the next five years, or greater than 1.555% over the next ten years? Does your opposition of Obama's Keynesian policies truly rest on more than loyalty to Republican ideology?

Good for you if your answer is "yes" -- because here's your chance to make a killing in the bond market!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 11:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I wouldn't expect we'd see the massive inflation until the economy starts to recover. At which point I believe it will jump substantionally for a number of years.

You can't increase the money supply by 30% and not expect high inflation to follow.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:00 pm
@maporsche,
You can, and you needn't be a Keynesian to see it. In the quantity theory of money, Milton Friedman's trademark,

M * V = P * Q,

where M is the quantity of money, V is the velocity of money, P is the price level, and Q is the quantity of goods and services sold. Solve for P, and you can see two conditions, each of which would allow an increase in M without also increasing P. Condition 1) is that V decreases , condition 2) is that Q increases. America currently meets condition 1. That's why the Fed currently can print money with no rise in the price level.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:07 pm
@Thomas,
But he said "until after the economy starts to recover". What will happen to the value of V at that point? At a guess, I mean.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How do you figure? They don't charge the "normal" fees associated with foreign purchases - where they can make a killing, but refuse to give a consumer with good credit a credit card. What am I missing here?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:18 pm
@roger,
Since the quantity of money is a multiplier (and an ever growing one), as the velocity of money grows, you'll see inflation grow to an even greater degree (I'm predicting, ok, guessing) that it will skyrocket.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:18 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
But he said "until after the economy starts to recover". What will happen to the value of V at that point? At a guess, I mean.

My guess is that V will return to its pre-recession level, Q will increase because that's what economic recovery means, and M will decrease because the Fed will raise interest rates and people will find it more attractive to hold bonds rather than cash. My guess is that inflation, too, will recover to pre-recession levels. Actually I hope it will be a bit higher, say 4%, but I don't expect to get my wish granted.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:24 pm
@Thomas,
I agree with the 4%, but I'm more confident that it'll take some years before we see that kind of inflation. The recession is still getting deeper, and recovery will take much longer than people realize.

Tax revenue at all levels of government continues to fall; that will not change any time soon.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 05:38:45