The dollar's not backed by gold, but by steel (that is to say, seven carrier battle groups) and uranium (nukes). ;p
To put it bluntly, in any kind of a worldwide economic disaster, the US would come out on top, specifically because of military supremacy. All sea trade takes place by the US's consent. No oil pipeline could exist if we wanted it to cease to exist. This isn't something that we normally make a big deal out of, because the US is perfectly content to let trade happen - it doesn't impoverish us when our neighbors also become rich. But if push came to shove, well, there's very few other countries who could shove at all.
But yes, we'd do better to lay off the deficit spending, simply because it's a self-defeating proposition in the long term. We're hardly at the point where the economy is suffering due to a lack of government spending (snort), and eventually the interest payments stack up and choke current spending. (Not happening yet, here, but it's headed that way.)
So, our dollar is worth what we say it is, because we'll pound you if you say any differently?
Not a recipe for long-term financial stability, that one.
A failing world economy would drag the US right down with it.
Cycloptichorn
In my opinion, more social programs, bigger government, more over regulation of the free market, and increased taxation would be a recipe for future mediocrity and loss of our position in the world, which would be disastrous in more ways than one, one being our economy.
okie wrote:In my opinion, more social programs, bigger government, more over regulation of the free market, and increased taxation would be a recipe for future mediocrity and loss of our position in the world, which would be disastrous in more ways than one, one being our economy.
It's a nice opinion, but not one which is supported by evidence.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:Yeah, McG, isn't it interesting that Clinton was able to show a surplus, then after Bush took over, all hell broke loose - literally "all hell," not only our deficit spending.
The surplus was on paper,assuming that all parts of the economy continued to work perfectly.
The economy didnt,so the surplus never materialized.
Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:In my opinion, more social programs, bigger government, more over regulation of the free market, and increased taxation would be a recipe for future mediocrity and loss of our position in the world, which would be disastrous in more ways than one, one being our economy.
It's a nice opinion, but not one which is supported by evidence.
Cycloptichorn
How would you deal with the evidence presented by the results of the dismemberment of the former social industrial mess in the UK by Margaret Thatcher? I believe that is evidence that has stood the test of time. One could of course also cite the resurgance of economic activity in Russia and the former states of the Soviet Empire - not to mention China, and even recentkly, Vietnam. On a shorter time scale consider the behavior of the German economy during the last few years following the reforms of the welfare and labor market regulatory systems. It seems to me that there is abundant evidence in support of of the proposition in question.
Federal minimum wage rising this week raising it from $5.15 an hour to $5.85 will provide only meager help for some of the lowest paid workers.
About 1.7 million people made $5.15 or less in 2006, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Since the minimum wage is an arbitrary number,why not make it $20 or $30 an hour?
If the little bit it went up is supposed to be a good thing,then wouldnt raising it to 20 or 30 an hour be even better?
okie wrote:In my opinion, more social programs, bigger government, more over regulation of the free market, and increased taxation would be a recipe for future mediocrity and loss of our position in the world, which would be disastrous in more ways than one, one being our economy.
But the liberals want more social programs, don't they?
mysteryman wrote:Since the minimum wage is an arbitrary number,why not make it $20 or $30 an hour?
If the little bit it went up is supposed to be a good thing,then wouldnt raising it to 20 or 30 an hour be even better?
Result would be more small businesses' closing up and big ones like Wal-Mart laying off thousands of low paid workers, who really need their jobs.
cicerone imposter wrote:Federal minimum wage rising this week
About 1.7 million people made $5.15 or less in 2006, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
They should go out and get themselves a paper route, in addition to their regular job. They get up at 3 am and are finished with their routes by 7 am. Then they can go off to their regular job.
Miller: That's probably what a whole lot of them really do to make ends meet.
cicerone imposter wrote:Miller: That's probably what a whole lot of them really do to make ends meet.
I often see these folks deliverying their papers using their big , new, sophisticated SUVs for transport.
Is that right? Have you had your eyes checked lately?
georgeob1 wrote:I think there are several basic misconceptions afoot on this thread.
You've noticed? After only 164 pages? Good job!
Thomas wrote:georgeob1 wrote:I think there are several basic misconceptions afoot on this thread.
You've noticed? After only 164 pages? Good job!
I would be interested to know what your take is on some of the points, Thomas. Perhaps you could itemize the misconceptions? I agree that there are many.
okie wrote:I would be interested to know what your take is on some of the points, Thomas. Perhaps you could itemize the misconceptions? I agree that there are many.
Thank you Okie, I take this as a compliment. But to tell you the truth, I have pretty much given up on this thread. That's why I focus my participation here strictly on what I do best: smart-assy wisecracks at George's expense.
You are welcome, Thomas. I meant it as a compliment. I value both your and George's opinions. Maybe things can be improved here? I would like to think that I am serious about how to really more accurately evaluate the economy. To tell you the truth, I argue the glass is half full angle because folks like imposter tend to think everything is about as bad as it can possibly be, and that we are all going to starve tomorrow. I realize that is stretching it a bit, but I want to be optimistic in regard to the economy, although I realize not all is hunky dory. So when there are plenty of doom and gloomers, I argue the optimistic view.
I would at least like to know where you might think I am totally wrong.
Quote:The astonishing skewness of U.S. income growth is evident in the analysis of other measures as well. The growth in total income reported on tax returns has been extremely concentrated in recent years: the share of national income accounted for by the top one percent of income earners reached 21.8% in 2005 -- a level not seen since 1928. In addition to high labor earnings, income growth is driven by corporate profits, which are at a nearly 50-year highs as a share of national income and which accrue mainly to those with high labor earnings.
That's from Foreign affairs, I don't have a link, unfortunately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/15gilded.html
Crazy, that we are entering the economic stages which are closely mirrored by the robber baron and pre-crash periods of our economy, and anyone would claim that the glass is 'half-full.'
Cycloptichorn
This topic keeps falling off of the front page, mostly because unnamed posters can't help from posting a billion of the same useless threads. Anyways.
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN2646636520070727
The BLS has revised the GDP growth for the last three years downwards. This basically means that the economy hasn't been growing at the rate that the supply-siders have been crowing about, not at all.
I find this completely unsurprising.
Cycloptichorn
