Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelyanoob]

Because lots of people get jobs and water to drink? Because it will make us friends forever with the area if it's done right? Because it can make lots of people lots of money? Because it can lift an entire region out of poverty? Because it will be the first step in knowing how to divert water to useful places in the hypothetical possibility that in the off chance, hey, maybe the glaciers are melting because I live on a Peninsula and the water level is about 8 feet higher than when I was a child, and the past two years it has been a substantial increase.

Hippy shit, sorry, but that's not how the world's institutions of power think. Do you really think they care? And it will not make money. If it would, we'd be doing it already.

Of course. What I'm saying though is that money from area A, ends up in area B, and I am not in area B. Therefore that wealth is not available to me anymore, correct? What I'm speaking of is the private citizen's point of view of international wealth.

Eventually, once all the wealth is gone from A, where I am, to B, it doesn't matter what currency A uses as it will be deflated or something.

What a load of rubbish. Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. If it was true, the USA would be the poorest nation on Earth. Economics just doesn't work like that.

So you think people in exporter nations are very rich somehow?

[Duuvian]

BTW as Criptfiend said, the money supply never runs low. By it's definition and how it's handled/created, that's impossible, just never going to happen. You need to read up on some economics if you think that a trade deficit leads to "running out of money". It's certainly a problem, but not that one.

I suppose you are right, money supply is always available. Before they had to switch the barter system, now they will print more money. Would you agree though that placing money into off shore bank accounts would be the same as capital moving out of country? Theoretically, the country could take out another loan, but...

[Reelyanoob]

The US government going broke is barely related to trade deficits.

- Trade deficits are citizens spending their own money.

- Federal deficits is the government spending greater than it taxes.

No specific connection there.

Anyway, when the citizen spends the $$$ they receive goods which have equivalent value, so the wealth of the nation is not decreased. Those goods could be sold or exported later to get the $$$ back.

Also note that if the US dollar is devalued, this most strongly affects the value of those US dollars held by foreigners, so all those holding US dollars get burnt.

Example:

Say a product made in the USA costs $1.50, and the imported version costs $1.00. So the import is cheaper. The US government devalues the dollar by 50%. This causes the import to cost $2.00, but most Americans will now buy the local version for $1.50 instead, so the 100% inflation inherent in the devaluation is offset, so you only get 50% inflation in practice. Holders of the US currency outside the US, find that the value of their holdings has dropped in half, without any compensatory pricing.

[Duuvian]

Of course. What I'm saying though is that money from area A, ends up in area B, and I am not in area B. Therefore that wealth is not available to me anymore, correct? What I'm speaking of is the private citizen's point of view of international wealth.

Eventually, once all the wealth is gone from A, where I am, to B, it doesn't matter what currency A uses as it will be deflated or something.

What a load of rubbish. Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. If it was true, the USA would be the poorest nation on Earth. Economics just doesn't work like that.

So you think people in exporter nations are very rich somehow?

First, in the first case it happened already. It was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. The British took all the gold currency away as they required payment for their imports which was imports >exports by the way for obvious reasons until early in the 1800s if I remember correctly when our exports started outpacing imports. That was the beginning of industry in America so at the time there was a lot of coastal trading from population centers where manufacturing was occurring at water mills and such.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that since we aren't tied to a gold standard anymore, we are likely to do things that will result in the eventual inflation of currency, since it won't have as much value due to that value still having been placed elsewhere. As such, if someone were secretly to still keep to the gold standard, like Glenn Beck (meant that sarcastically), then gold prices will go up compared to the dollar everyone uses.

Also, yes, exporter nations BECOME very rich over time, the British became extremely wealthy through passing laws requiring the colonies to only purchase British goods. This led the Americans to become smugglers as the French offered better prices for their goods in the West Indies. John Hancock was 90% smuggler if I remember correctly.

In addition, the Chinese economy is tailor made for export goods. This is due to having to take loans from the Soviet Russians to fund their Five Year Plans.  They essentially sacrificed their consumer goods such as radios, TVs, cars, and such so they had goods to sell to the Russians, for about 50 years until they finally are starting to catch up as far as living conditions, and while I haven't been there my father and sister have. I'll stress starting to catch up in the previous sentence.

[Reelyanoob]

I said "people in exporter nations" which is not to say the nations themselves.

Obviously, someone is getting rich, but not the average person.

But to get back to the main (off-topic) point we're discussing, the USA is NOT going broke. There's a net gain in wealth greater than the trade deficit.

This is a good site for the basic figures:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note that "US Debt held by foreign countries" is increasing a lot slower than "US Household Assets". Most US debt is internal.

[Duuvian]

I said "people in exporter nations" which is not to say the nations themselves.

Obviously, someone is getting rich, but not the average person.

Precisely. So, if someone is getting rich in these countries, but not the average guy there who works for slightly better than what would equate to a slave's wage here, why can't the average guy here in democracy-land at least get a decent job so we can buy something not made by someone who is willing to go to extreme distances to pay people less than they should. Being unemployed means we can't even buy the slave labor stuff and the whole system is less efficient.

Meanwhile, the exporting countries could continue exporting as they already do, and use it to buy our consumer and capital goods as they already are. I recently read the Chinese are thinking about dropping a law requiring all manufactured goods to be designed in China. This would be an excellent boon, as previously what ended up happenng (and resulting in my dad's two trips to China) is that they would order a machine from the company, it would be delivered; my dad would be free for a few days to look around Beijing, and then the Chinese would call him back and show him an identical machine they had just reverse engineered in the two or three days, and then he'd come back home. I'd imagine that will be a step towards increasing exports to China.

I also think tariffs should be looked into, but those are often unpredictable. I'd imagine it would require a lot of pragmatic negotiation.

[Reelyanoob]

Individualist Capitalism, Dude! Doesn't matter if I burn the whole forest down for one piece of charcoal, as long as I make my profit.

Ah yeah with that China thing: no guarantee that the stuff will be designed in the USA. Korea for example has a lot of good engineers. Also Europe, India. So everyone would have to compete for that pie, not just USA.

[Duuvian]

I said "people in exporter nations" which is not to say the nations themselves.

Obviously, someone is getting rich, but not the average person.

But to get back to the main (off-topic) point we're discussing, the USA is NOT going broke. There's a net gain in wealth greater than the trade deficit.

This is a good site for the basic figures:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note that "US Debt held by foreign countries" is increasing a lot slower than "US Household Assets". Most US debt is internal.

That's a really awesome link, thanks for posting it, looking at it now

EDIT: What the hell is the prescription drug liability, this looks bad

EDIT2: PLEASE OH PLEASE DON'T BE THIS: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/15/health/he-closer15

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

All drugs approved by the FDA are extensively labeled with information on dosing and administration, side effects, precautions and warnings. That label, in addition to the medication itself, must be reviewed and approved by the FDA.

If the ruling this fall is made for the defendant -- the pharmaceutical company Wyeth -- it would tilt the playing field largely in favor of the pharmaceutical industry, by stating that such claims against drugs are preempted because experts at the FDA sanctioned the product and its label for safety. Because federal law supersedes state law, the ruling would affect lawsuits filed in all 50 states.

Please don't say the Pharmaceutacal sector didn't get a ruling in a court case that says the Federal Government is a lawsuit target for anything the FDA approved.

EDIT: http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/topics/prescription-drug-liability

EDIT3: Argh, so this is how they looted the government, eh?

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3147fda_for_profits.html

It also explains why the dentists around here will schedule you for 6 cleaning visits for gum swelling before writing you antibiotics. They have to explore all their 'options' and can't leap right to antibiotics right away of course, to the point of proposing surgery instead, because hypothetically anti-biotics treatment could make some kind of resistant disease in candyland.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

there's also the argument that the desert is itself an ecosystem, with an endemic fauna and flora. "revitalizing" the desert would just be another way of destroying our forests and hurting our planet

not that i care that much about the planet and biodiversity, i just thought this was an issue some people would like to discuss


...
SAVE THE CAMELS! PLANT MORE SAND!

[Reelyanoob]

Yeah I thought about that then promptly forgot about the issue. There's a lot of desert life which couldn't compete with introduced species, if we greened the Sahara.

[Reelyanoob]

EDIT: What the hell is the prescription drug liability, this looks bad

Because of highly expensive privatised medicine system in the USA, and the need for conservatives to keep the "grey" votes (seniors), the US Government has promised to pay retail for all their medicines, straight to the big pharm companies. (Obama tried to stop paying retail, and get generic drugs at wholesale prices, but was shot down for "rationing" healthcare).

Bush added 17 trillion to that bottom line of liabilities with Medicare Part D

AND EVERYONE IN THE USA GETS TO PAY FOR IT, BUT NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT! YAY!

(mind you the $100 trillion unfunded medical costs, is not the whole cost, just the part the feds don't have enough money for. Anything already spent or allocated is not counted.)

Seriously, that's how wrong the healthcare in USA is. Anywhere else, less tax than this would pay for universal healthcare. (800 billion spent per year of taxpayers money, but you have to pay again to go to hospital, even for emergency care, or so i hear)

[Duuvian]

Yeah I thought about that then promptly forgot about the issue. There's a lot of desert life which couldn't compete with introduced species, if we greened the Sahara.

That is very true, but I'd hope that any plans would keep unique parts of the desert as untouched as possible. After all, from what I know of the desert is that it may only rain every 16 years, but when it does it becomes vibrant. It may be other deserts I'm thinking of though. I reckon the only difference would be the desert would be vibrant seasonally rather than once a decade.

[Another]

You may be interested to read about a related project that aimed at irrigating Central Asia deserts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal

That one actually had official engineering plans behind it partially completed and would be already implemented by now if a few people ruling the USSR at the time happened to be fans of this idea.

Major complication with such projects is that they are bound do change the climate patterns not only locally but also in the neighboring regions. Overall it may turn out to be a change for the worse.

[Duuvian]

EDIT: What the hell is the prescription drug liability, this looks bad

Because of highly expensive privatised medicine system in the USA, and the need for conservatives to keep the "grey" votes (seniors), the US Government has promised to pay retail for all their medicines, straight to the big pharm companies. (Obama tried to stop paying retail, and get generic drugs at wholesale prices, but was shot down for "rationing" healthcare).

Bush added 17 trillion to that bottom line of liabilities with Medicare Part D

AND EVERYONE IN THE USA GETS TO PAY FOR IT, BUT NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT! YAY!

(mind you the $100 trillion unfunded medical costs, is not the whole cost, just the part the feds don't have enough money for. Anything already spent or allocated is not counted.)

Seriously, that's how wrong the healthcare in USA is. Anywhere else, less tax than this would pay for universal healthcare. (800 billion spent per year of taxpayers money, but you have to pay again to go to hospital, even for emergency care, or so i hear)

It sounds like a two part plan, like they had their politicians take over the FDA and then pushed through their buddies products, then passed a law that said the government is liable for lawsuits against those products. That way they can get rich a SECOND way, not only are they peddling bad medicine but they are sueing the government for allowing the companies to do it and they hide inside of class action lawsuits.

That's if I interpreted that prescription drug liability thing correctly on that debt website.

[Duuvian]

You may be interested to read about a related project that aimed at irrigating Central Asia deserts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal

That one actually had official engineering plans behind it partially completed and would be already implemented by now if a few people ruling the USSR at the time happened to be fans of this idea.

Major complication with such projects is that they are bound do change the climate patterns not only locally but also in the neighboring regions. Overall it may turn out to be a change for the worse.

That's pretty interesting, I didn't know anything about that. I suppose the effect on current would have to be studied first. In this case you would be bringing water in from the ocean as a sort of artificial precipitation, so I guess it would be almost the opposite of re-routing a river into a desert.