114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 09:38 pm
@roger,
I don't know much about it either. But, if the economy is state-planned, choosing crops wouldn't be motivated by price, I don't think. The farmer I watched looked devastated, though.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 11:35 pm
@Irishk,
I just meant that I have had little hints and glimmers that at some level, private enterprise is flourishing. I'm fairly sure that the whole deal involving some kind of additive to milk to convince government inspectors that the protein content was in the acceptable range was a company innovation, rather than government policy.

Admittedly, there is a lot about the workings of China about which I'm clueless.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 05:34 am
@roger,
roger wrote:



Admittedly, there is a lot about the workings of China about which I'm clueless.


You better learn quick because Obama wants America to work more like China.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 09:58 am
There are some posters who are soooooooo tiresome.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 10:24 am
@plainoldme,
Pathetic Old Mule is tired of drinking the blue Kool-Aid
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 04:31 pm
I stumbled across an article today that I saw in The Motley Fool, which is not one of my favorite investment sites. The author's focus was on something else, but he cited some stats from seemingly legit sources stating that the average value of 401-K retirement hit a record high of $75,000 in the 1st Q of 2011.
His own assumptions were that:
> The average 401-K is highest among newly retired people
> Dropping as people are further away from retirement
> And with wage stagnation, the 401-K contributions are not growing as fast as they have in the past.
> He goes on to suggest that many people have no 401-K's and that
> Many people assumed that the increase in the value of their home would be their equivalent of a 401-K.

The reason I saw the article is because I am in discussions with hoteliers about building one on a site I own. Any article mentioning their name shows up on my computer. The MF author mentioned hotels, cruises and even retirement homes (and their stocks) as being vulnerable to getting hit by retirees watching their wallets.
Sorry for the interruption.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 07:52 am
Profit margins:

Pharmaceutical companies earn a profit margin that is 4 or 5 times higher than the best profit margin Oil companies earn,
but politicians don't seem to be concerned with the obscene profits Big Pharma rakes in and how it effects the economy.

Why are there no hearings about Big Parma's obscene profits?

Why is there no talk of the government taking over Pharmaceutical companies?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 08:25 am
@H2O MAN,
Wow! A first! An allwet post with real content!

Yes, the general public is concerned with the profits raked in by Big Pharma, oh you of the short memory. Remember the busloads of senior citizens going to Canada to fill prescriptions? Duh!

Why do you think so many people wanted single payer? Duh!
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 09:01 am
@plainoldme,
Pathetic Old Mule, you are lost in space.

The dumbmasses want a 'single payer' system because they don't understand what it means, Duh!
If they educated themselves about single payer, they would fight against it, Duh!
Also, you failed to address the question about the total lack of concern from
politicians when it comes to Big Pharma and it's effect on the economy.

POM, I bet you don't know the difference between profit and profit margin.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 09:25 am
Quote:
Ryan’s Risky Debt Default Dare
May 19th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Andrew Pavelyev

The more I look at Paul Ryan’s recent comments on CNBC, downplaying the odds of a debt deal while claiming bondholders would accept missed payments, the more I am troubled. Not only is his cavalier attitude to a default scary in and of itself, but his justification for it just doesn’t make any sense.

In the interview, Ryan said: “I talk to lots of bond traders. I talk to lots of people like Gross and Druckenmiller and economists. They all say, whatever you do, make sure you get real spending cuts, because you want to make sure that the bondholder has confidence that the government’s gonna be able to pay them.”

Ryan also added: “That’s what I’m hearing from most people, which is, if a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four, what’s more important, that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on.” (Ryan also seemed to be echoed by Sen. Toomey on this point).

But is there really any crisis of confidence among the bondholders? The current yields on 5 and 10 year notes and 30 year bonds are, respectively, 1.84%, 3.17% and 4.29%. For comparison, in late 1999 and 2000 all these yields were above 6% (never mind notes and bonds – on some days in 2000 even the yields on T-bills were more than double the yield on a 10-year note now!).

Back then the budget was balanced, inflation and unemployment were low, and there was an expectation that the country would just continue to party like it’s 1999. Much lower current yields certainly do not suggest any loss of confidence since those good old days.

And why would bondholders be so worried about long term deficit projections anyway? The average maturity of U.S. debt is 5 years, and over 90% of publicly held debt matures within 10 years. Does Ryan really think that “all” or “most” bondholders are seriously concerned that the government may not be able to pay them within the next several years?

And if that’s really so, why does he callously disregard those concerns? His plan does not even begin to reform Medicare for 10 years and does not balance the budget for about 20 years. Furthermore, in the next few years it actually adds more to the national debt than the president’s budget plan and thus puts the government in a materially worse position to be able to pay the bonds that are currently in circulation.

Why would bondholders be reassured by such a plan, let alone welcome a default if it helps to pass that plan?! A bonus question for CNBC: why wasn’t Paul Ryan asked follow-up questions about these glaring contradictions?


http://www.frumforum.com/ryans-risky-debt-default-dare

Ryan wasn't asked follow-up questions, because they don't want to give away the fact that the whole ******* 'crisis' over our long-term debt is a sham.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 09:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
More unfounded hyperbole....

Hard to call it a "sham" when one looks at the recent growth of debt and interest costs in this country , both in absolute terms and as a % of GDP, and the unfolding of financial crises (and their consequences)in Europe over entirely analogous conditions.

We have debased our currency as a means of staving off further economic contraction - trading short term benefit for added long-term risk. Meanwhile we are adding to the challenges inhibiting economic recovery through excessive (and often inept) regulation; ill-timed and often irrational environmental regulation of energy sources; continued misuse of the law to defend and extend the monopolies of destructive labor unions.

I believe it is fairly clear that continuing these policies and refusing to consider the restructuring of basic entitlement programs is the surest way of ensuring their eventual collapse.

Interestingly then Senator Obama voted against an earlier increase in the debt ceiling, loudly voicing some of the same concerns about four years ago. "Plus sa change ..."
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:00 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

More unfounded hyperbole....

Hard to call it a "sham" when one looks at the recent growth of debt and interest costs in this country , both in absolute terms and as a % of GDP, and the unfolding of financial crises (and their consequences)in Europe over entirely analogous conditions.

We have debased our currency as a means of staving off further economic contraction - trading short term benefit for added long-term risk. Meanwhile we are adding to the challenges inhibiting economic recovery through excessive (and often inept) regulation; ill-timed and often irrational environmental regulation of energy sources; continued misuse of the law to defend and extend the monopolies of destructive labor unions.

I believe it is fairly clear that continuing these policies and refusing to consider the restructuring of basic entitlement programs is the surest way of ensuring their eventual collapse.


The bond market completely disagrees with you. That's the entire point of the piece - guys like you keep predicting doom and gloom if we don't change our ways, while those who are actually purchasing our debt predict no such doom and gloom. I think you have a base misunderstanding of the dynamics at play here, and the consequences of willfully ignoring our obligations to pay debts.

Just to repeat a long-standing point I've been raising - when was the last time that the right-wing position on economic matters was shown to be correct? On anything at all? I certainly can't remember. The last 20 years have been littered with right-wing predictions of doom which have ALL turned out to be completely false, and predictions of success which have as well. At what point is a view discredited? Is there ANY amount of error that discredits an economic viewpoint?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:14 am
Quote:
The Debt Ceiling Fiasco

Fights over the budget are normal and proper in a democracy. But threatening to default could have dire consequences for the dollar, interest rates and the economy.

By ALAN S. BLINDER

The debt ceiling "crisis" started on Monday when the U.S. government reached the legal limit on how much it is allowed to borrow—a limit that, curiously, counts even debts that one branch of government owes to another. But don't worry—yet. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has a variety of ways to push back the day of reckoning to early August. What happens then?

Before attempting an answer, let's first note that this should not be happening in the first place. Other countries pass budgets estimating total receipts and expenditures for the year, which in turn imply how much they plan to borrow. But not here. Our Congress can pass a budget that implies an illegal amount of new borrowing. In fact, it did so last month when the two parties agreed to a fiscal year 2011 budget projected to push the national debt over $15 trillion, even though the law limits the debt to $14.3 trillion.
What happens if we crash into the debt ceiling? Nobody really knows, but it's not likely to be pretty. Inflows and outflows of cash to and from the Treasury jump around from day to day as bills are paid and revenues arrive. But at average fiscal 2011 rates, receipts cover only about 60% of expenditures. So if we hit the borrowing wall traveling at full speed, the U.S. government's total outlays—a complex amalgam that includes everything from Social Security benefits to soldiers' pay to interest on the national debt—will have to drop by about 40% immediately.

How in the world do you do that? No one really knows. If and when the time comes, Mr. Geithner and his boss will have to decide. But here's one prediction: Defaulting on the national debt will not be their first choice. After all, the statue of Alexander Hamilton at the Treasury entrance reminds Mr. Geithner every day of the importance of maintaining the nation's creditworthiness. Even if we hit the debt ceiling, maturing obligations still can be rolled over. And I'll bet he will bend every effort to make the interest payments, too. Unfortunately, however, when you're 40% short, not much can be ruled out.

For a while, the Treasury can temporize with creative accounting, shifting money from one pile to another, and the like. For example, contributions to government employees' pension funds can be delayed. But a 40% shortfall translates to over $4 billion a day, including Saturdays and Sundays. At that rate, you run through your bag of tricks pretty fast and must find ways to conserve serious amounts of cash.

The bills for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense and interest on the debt comprise about two-thirds of all federal outlays. So they can't all be sacrosanct indefinitely. At some point, Mr. Geithner could wind up brooding over horrible questions like these: Do we stop issuing checks for Social Security benefits, or for soldiers' pay, or for interest payments to the Chinese government? Such agonizing choices are what make default imaginable.

Imaginable, but unlikely. Should it occur, the consequences could be severe. It might, for example, reignite the world financial crisis. Remember how rattled financial markets became last year when it looked like Greece might default? And that was just little Greece and the possibility of default. An actual default by the mightiest nation on Earth would be immeasurably more unsettling. Where, in such a case, would frightened investors run to hide?

The U.S. dollar would be among the first casualties. If hot money were to flee what was once its safest haven, the dollar would sink and U.S. interest rates would rise. The latter could lead us back into recession.

There would also be lasting costs to the U.S. government in the form of higher interest rates. For as long as anyone can remember, the full faith and credit of the United States has been as good as gold—no one has better credit. But if investors start to see default as part of U.S. political gamesmanship, they will demand compensation for this novel risk. How much? Again, no one can know. But even if it's as little as 10-20 basis points on the U.S. government's average borrowing cost, that's an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in interest expenses every year. Seems like an expensive way to score a political point.

That said, outright default is not my main concern. Several other things are:

For openers, suppose the federal government actually does reduce its expenditures by 40% overnight. That translates to roughly $1.5 trillion at annual rates, or about 10% of GDP. That's an enormous fiscal contraction for any economy to withstand, never mind one in a sluggish recovery with 9% unemployment. Even contemplating such a possibility is evidence of a dark, self-destructive impulse.

Second, markets now assign essentially zero probability to the U.S. losing its fiscal mind
. They'd be caught flat-footed if the threat of default suddenly started to look real, possibly triggering a world-wide financial panic. Remember how markets reacted to the Lehman Brothers surprise? As Mr. Geithner pointed out in New York on Tuesday, "As we saw in the fall of 2008, when confidence turns, it can turn with brutal force and with a momentum that is very difficult and costly to arrest."

And finally, as mentioned, should the view take hold that threats to default are now a permissible weapon of political combat in the world's greatest democracy, U.S. government debt will lose its exalted status as the safest asset money can buy—with unpleasant consequences for the dollar and interest rates.

Fights over the budget are normal and proper in a democracy, especially when the two parties hold dramatically different views. But threatening to default should not be a partisan issue. In view of all the hazards it entails, one wonders why any responsible person would even flirt with the idea.

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329374000372118.html


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The bond market completely disagrees with you. That's the entire point of the piece - guys like you keep predicting doom and gloom if we don't change our ways, while those who are actually purchasing our debt predict no such doom and gloom. I think you have a base misunderstanding of the dynamics at play here, and the consequences of willfully ignoring our obligations to pay debts.

Just to repeat a long-standing point I've been raising - when was the last time that the right-wing position on economic matters was shown to be correct? On anything at all? I certainly can't remember. The last 20 years have been littered with right-wing predictions of doom which have ALL turned out to be completely false, and predictions of success which have as well. At what point is a view discredited? Is there ANY amount of error that discredits an economic viewpoint?


The "bond market" agreed with Greece too through a decade of accelerating deficit spending and financial chicanery, and then one day, it didn't ... and a devastating financial crisis very suddently ensued. It's effects were significantly lessened by the self-serving generosity of its EU partners. No one will bail us out.

The last 20 years have been littered with many things, but through most of the period we have had Democrast governments and Democrat economic policies. (Economically Bush wasn't much of a Republican). These are verifiable facts ... in stark contrast to your sweeping and absurd generalizations.
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:24 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The bond market completely disagrees with you. That's the entire point of the piece - guys like you keep predicting doom and gloom if we don't change our ways, while those who are actually purchasing our debt predict no such doom and gloom. I think you have a base misunderstanding of the dynamics at play here, and the consequences of willfully ignoring our obligations to pay debts.

Just to repeat a long-standing point I've been raising - when was the last time that the right-wing position on economic matters was shown to be correct? On anything at all? I certainly can't remember. The last 20 years have been littered with right-wing predictions of doom which have ALL turned out to be completely false, and predictions of success which have as well. At what point is a view discredited? Is there ANY amount of error that discredits an economic viewpoint?


The "bond market" agreed with Greece too through a decade of accelerating deficit spending and financial chicanery, and then one day, it didn't ... and a devastating financial crisis very suddently ensued. It's effects were significantly lessened by the self-serving generosity of its EU partners. No one will bail us out.


We don't have to have anyone 'bail us out' - we are masters of our own currency. The most you could predict is high inflation - but, once again, those such as yourself have been predicting high inflation for 20 years and have been consistently wrong. Why should I take your worries seriously now, given that?

Quote:
The last 20 years have been littered with many things, but through most of the period we have had Democrast governments and Democrat economic policies. (Economically Bush wasn't much of a Republican).


Bullshit. Bush WAS a Republican economically - he ran up massive debts and cut taxes, especially for the rich. That's textbook Republicanism. You can't just wave away your party's failures in this area.

Republicans in the 90's predicted doom if Clinton raised taxes; they were completely and totally wrong. Then, they predicted massive expansion of the economy under Bush's tax cuts; they were completely and totally wrong. They predicted that the war in Iraq would cost us almost nothing, and were completely wrong. Predicted that markets could 'self-regulate' and were completely wrong. Predicted that TARP would never be paid back; completely wrong. Predicted the auto bailouts would end in failure; completely and totally wrong.

What have Conservatives been right about? Specifically. You ought to be able to name a prediction or two that was at least in the ballpark.

Quote:
These are verifiable facts ... in stark contrast to your sweeping and absurd generalizations.


Which one of those was a 'verifiable fact?' I must have missed it in between all the assertions.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:33 am
Just to add on to the earlier point, Conservatives would have us believe that those who are purchasing our debt have no clue what they are doing purchasing our debt at such low levels. They have no explanation at all for why people, well, keep right on doing so.

Felix Salmon has a good idea -

Quote:
Adventures with debt-ceiling politics
May 17, 2011 18:46 EDT

As the debate over the debt ceiling has heated up over the past month, the yield on the ten-year bond has plunged, from 3.57% on April 11 to 3.12% today. This is not a market which fears catastrophe come August 2. So it’s easy to see why Republicans simply don’t believe Tim Geithner when he tells them that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by then, we will have some kind of macroeconomic Armageddon.

Remember, the House Republicans were told in no uncertain terms — by George W Bush, no less — that if they voted against TARP, that would have equally catastrophic consequences. Bush’s threat was more credible than Geithner’s, and the Republicans in the House were less truculent then than they are now. And even so they voted against TARP.

On the other hand, this kind of thing simply is about as far from responsible lawmaking as you can get:
Quote:


Dennis Ross, a House Republican and a member of the Tea Party caucus, told Reuters: “I’m not an economist, but I have maintained a household. The federal government owns 70 per cent of Utah, for example. There are federal buildings. If you need cash, let’s start liquidating.”


He wants to sell Utah?

The sensible thing to do, of course, is to abolish the debt ceiling altogether — it serves no useful purpose. It’s “a historical relic,” writes Annie Lowrey, “the budgetary equivalent of the appendix”.

At the same time, however, Ross is absolutely right that the sun is going to rise on August 3.

But here’s what I don’t understand: we’ve already reached the debt ceiling. At this point, Geithner can point at just about anything and say that it’s an expenditure we can’t afford right now, and we’ll have to put it off until the debt ceiling is raised. Why doesn’t he just do that with all Congressional salaries? If the House Republicans had to live without pay between now and when the debt ceiling is raised, that would surely concentrate their minds a bit. And it’s got to be a better idea than the current strategy, which seems to involve Geithner all but begging the Republicans to call his bluff and wait until after August 2 to do anything.


http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/05/17/adventures-with-debt-ceiling-politics/

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 10:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Conservatives would have us believe that those who are purchasing our debt have no clue what they are doing purchasing our debt at such low levels.


Liberals have proven to us that they have no clue what they are
doing while they rack up such high levels of debt... believe it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 03:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

We don't have to have anyone 'bail us out' - we are masters of our own currency. The most you could predict is high inflation - but, once again, those such as yourself have been predicting high inflation for 20 years and have been consistently wrong. Why should I take your worries seriously now, given that?
Well we aparently agree that no one will bail us out. We are not the masters of our own currency - relatively large amounts of it are held by foreigners, and we depend every day on their willingness to buy more of our debt, denominated in dollars, just to sustain our growing deficit spending. That simply can't continue without a financial crisis of some kind.

The recent growth of our deficits, both absolutely and relatively as a % of GDP has eclipsed previous episodes by a wide margin. Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation helped end the stagflation of the Nixon - Carter years. His defense spending accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Clod War. What's going on now is strangling economic development and creating a climate of dependency in the country - even as our neighbors in Canada are reducing theirs. This will reduce economic growth and create a continuing cycle of rising spending and increasing debt.

I think you read too much partisan propaganda (either type will do). It reduces your inclination to think for yourself.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 04:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
From the quoted piece

Quote:
But here’s what I don’t understand: we’ve already reached the debt ceiling. At this point, Geithner can point at just about anything and say that it’s an expenditure we can’t afford right now, and we’ll have to put it off until the debt ceiling is raised. Why doesn’t he just do that with all Congressional salaries? If the House Republicans had to live without pay between now and when the debt ceiling is raised, that would surely concentrate their minds a bit. And it’s got to be a better idea than the current strategy, which seems to involve Geithner all but begging the Republicans to call his bluff and wait until after August 2 to do anything.


Exactly!
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 04:20 pm
@JPB,
There's the germ of a good idea there. Perhaps we could stop the pay of any legislator (Republican or Democrat) who votes for continued or expanded spending in excess of expected tax receipts until our public debt returns to a more managable fraction of GDP.

Geithner is merely a pawn in the game. He is dancing to the president's tune, and the President, based on his last two budget speeches appears to have no coherent plan at all. He is merely playing politics, based on the hope that he can outfox the Republicans in the months ahead. The country will be the loser in this game.
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.12 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 08:10:16