Print

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

[PTTG??]

Ah yes, airplanes. The perfect way to move things like shipping containers full of iron ore.

I also find it interesting that 85 years of economic change somehow manages to remain totally the same in terms of tax revenue. Frankly the whole tax/spending argument needs to be revisited from the beginning. We need to agree on the purpose of government and how and what we expect to get out of it. I just don't know what conservatives want; the argument tends to dissolve into what appears to be a cargo-cult ritual of "spending cuts" of one or two cents here in order to spend tens of thousands on guns.

[Sheb]

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Government spending.
The Economist cool table with debts level and stuff.

Of course, Germany got exports, and Belgium got the EU, and the Netherlands got tulips and people coming in to buy weed and Denmark got Smørrebrød and Danish design. We all makes our money in different way. But we all maintain relatively high level of government spending.

[Nadaka]

So your modification to the analogy fails. The hero wants the villain to take the fall for shooting his girlfriend.

What you are ignoring here is that one side is a goddamn hostage taker!

Who is holding America hostage is merely a point of view. Either side could bend.

Generously, I permitted your view. I allowed putatively that Republicans are villains, and then I showed you how your hero is acting, if we grant that this is the case. A conventional storybook hero doesn't respond the way Obama has in the hostage situation. It doesn't matter that the villain grabbed the girl. The villain always grabs the girl. What I'm saying is, the hero doesn't react that way in the usual movie trope.

You have to assess whether the movie trope is wrong, or maybe your good guy isn't so good.

It is not a point of view. It was a crisis created by the republicans for the express purpose of harming America. Their demand? Harm America or we will harm America more! Compromise is just damage control, and giving them their goal. They are terrorists and traitors attempting to dismantle my country and yours.

[PTTG??]

The United States actually does have exports- very important exports. In fact, downright essential on a global scale. Oh sure, when people talk about american exports, they think of either nebulous "innovation", or else corn and wheat, but those are secondary.

Gas.

While Sauds sell crude, we sell refined gas. This is because we have the refineries. Refineries are very, very expensive toys, and the US was industrialized and making them forever. It's a major value-added business, and while there are several other countries with greater crude reserves, and a few with more actual exports, we are number one when it comes to actual usable fuel.
It's odd that republicans seem to forget about that when they compare the US to other industrial nations. Germany might make things, but they make them out of american plastics and transport them with american energy.

It would probably be very good for the US to ban bunker fuel for large cargo ships and sell them refined gas instead.

[Leafsnail]

I never even said high speed rail, regular speed rail would be nice too.

In addition air travel is horrible for the environment and not likely to be viable for too much longer.

[Nadaka]

Or roads, and bridges and power lines and fiber optics and sewers and water pipes. Our infrastructure is in absolutely terrible shape.

[GreatJustice]

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Government spending.
The Economist cool table with debts level and stuff.

Of course, Germany got exports, and Belgium got the EU, and the Netherlands got tulips and people coming in to buy weed and Denmark got Smørrebrød and Danish design. We all makes our money in different way. But we all maintain relatively high level of government spending.

We could argue all day about how strong the economies of Europe are compared to the US, how prosperous their citizens are in comparison, etc, but I'd say this can generally be summed up with "military spending". The majority of the US's spending comes from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "defense". Now "defense" doesn't constitute what would be necessary to defend the US, it also includes the costs of multiple wars and military bases in Europe and East Asia. Believe it or not, the US having a sizable presence in Europe deterring just about any conceivable invasion just might have something to do with far less defense spending in Europe and therefore a larger budget.

Last time trains come up someone pointed out that US population density is lower then Europe.  Then someone points out that is a meaningless statistic because we aren't trying to connect empty plots of land in Montana, we just care about where people actually live.  So trains come up and we're back to US has lower population density then Europe.

What, practically speaking, is the difference in the behavior of the right wingers in this thread from the behavior of trolls?

"Right wingers? In MY political thread? It's more common than you think."

I'd disagree with being called a "right winger" though, since that would imply some sort of desire to return to the "good old days" or an opposition to change.

Now besides that, your point is still irrelevant because the areas being connected in Japan and Europe are STILL far more densely populated, with plenty of stations connecting sizable towns en route between large cities. In the US, the only two areas where this is even remotely the case would be the Northeastern megalopolis (Boston to Washington) and MAYBE the area between LA and San Francisco in California. It would amount to a huge pile of pork barrel spending, especially considering the states themselves or, god forbid, the private sector would be capable of providing such a comparatively short rail line.

Libertarianism has seemed to me like it's growing extremely rapidly the last few years, and all the ones I know worship Ayn Rand.  They're not a huge force yet, but the "movement" descriptor is meant to indicate growth and the potential to become a force.

Libertarianism as an ideology is growing, yes. But Objectivism is an altogether different animal from libertarianism for a lot of reasons, not in the least because it has a strict moral/ethical system tacked on that most libertarians would disagree with, it's associated with a bunch of policies that libertarians tend to find repugnant. Rand herself disliked libertarians for about the same reasons. Politically speaking, a libertarian and an Objectivist would advocate for mostly similar things economically and socially, but that's where the association breaks down. For example, an Objectivist would be okey-dokey with foreign wars across the world so long as they were against "socialist pigpens" or "barbarians" of some description, and would almost always advocate a government that does nothing but build roads, arrest criminals, and battle aforementioned socialists. A libertarian, meanwhile, could advocate for anything from slightly lower taxes and spending alongside a reduced drug war to no government whatsoever.

If you ignore the aforementioned disagreements about ethics and looked at it from a purely political perspective, then Objectivists would constitute a portion of the libertarian movement, but a very distinct one. Treating the two interchangeably would be a bit like calling the European Social Democrats the "Marxist Movement" or the American Democratic Party the "LaRouche Movement".

[Sheb]

Military spending is a part of government spending. The US's defence spending* may lower the part of government spending spent on the army, but it does not change the fact that government can spend much more than the US do if they're willing to tax for it.


*Actually, the US defence spending is so comically large that you could probably halve it without changing much to Europe's need to spend on defense. but it's true that it does help.

[Trollheiming]

Honestly, defense spending is far larger than it has been historically, even through the Cold War. It does need trimming. We need to follow through on our Asian pivot and remove bases from other regions. Less research and more ships to project strength in the Pacific. But that won't get rid of the deficit alone. Other spending cuts need to be done.

I worked that job while getting my degree as a 3d artist, along with a bunch of my classmates.  I couldn't do it forever, though.  I needed higher pay to survive.  Now I'm working a worthless desk job (customs clearance) and I fucking hate it with a passion.  I would go back to throwing around boxes (or any equivalent) in a heartbeat if I could support my family on it.

Not meaning to pick you out of a crowd of millions, but most of the young college graduates aren't like you. They expect more. They were told college was a sure thing, then loaded up with debt and got out expecting the economy could endlessly make room for more general white-collar workers. It's an overinvestment in too many generalist white-collar workers, and society at large is to blame for signalling to young people that trades are "low-class" work. Welders and pipe-fitters can make a lot of money.

Anyway, I've worked as a landscaper and in a warehouse, so I know what you mean. Moving around all day has its good points compared to desk jobs.

Last debt ceiling Republicans insisted on spending cuts or they would destroy the world economy.  This is nihilistic asshole behavior.  Democrats did not demand tax hikes at the threat of being nihilistic assholes.

Inaction is not virtuous behavior, either. Spending money that you don't have, that will plunge this and future generations into chaos, is a form of nihilism heedless of future consequences far worse than a fiscal cliff. Expecting bond-holders to cover the government's bills forever, as they soar past 20 trillion dollars, is perfectly asshole behavior. Are there free lunches in life?

US Treasuries will continue to sell. Then, one day, they won't sell at all. The market will have no confidence in repayment. The end for all debtors, both big and small, comes slowly at first, and then all at once. Zimbabwe ensues.

Your side is assholes, get over it or stop supporting them.

I don't particularly support them. I have no visions of politicians ushering in a grand utopia. I know both sides are assholes. What I'm saying to you, as you discuss Obama's strategy to give them the blame, is that Obama isn't acting the way any normally concerned person would in a hostage situation.

I've already granted you the premise that Republicans are the villains. Now show me the hero. There is none. If I pointed a gun at your mother, you wouldn't act the way Obama is acting toward the evil villainous Republicans threatening his beloved America. "Go ahead and shoot my mother! The police will know that I didn't do it!"

View enclosed chart. 85 years. Approximately 20% of GDP in tax revenues over multiple top-rate tax policies.

So?  That's because our politics has decided on those tax levels.  You might as well say that it's a law of the universe that the speed limit is 65 miles per hour.

No, politics didn't decide the tax level. It can't ever. I think you misread the chart. The nominal tax rates have changed many times. They failed to change actual revenue collection. Higher tax rates don't net more tax dollars in actual revenue. We get 20% of what America produces whether we soak the rich for 90% of their marginal income, or for 30% of their marginal income. That is 85 years worth of data.

You can't count on raising tax rates on the rich, or the middle-class, or even the poor to get you out of this deficit. The taxes are what the taxes are. Past a certain point, you simply can't get more revenue by increasing rates. The top rates have been as low as 30%, and tax revenue was still 20% of GDP.

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Absolutely. As I admitted earlier, this 20% GDP cap on tax revenues exists only in America's data. In other countries, the cap is higher for many reasons cultural, demographic, geographic, or whatever.  But the caps do exist. In a perfectly utopian society do you think people would give 100% in tax revenue without reducing output at all?

[Sheb]

Well, this cap seems... specious at best. For starter it's only the top tax rates that's on your graphs. It just seems weird that you can't increase tax revenues at all. Let me dig on it. Also it's funny how you defended using aboslute numbers for deficits and relative numbers for revenues.

As for US Treasuries, when the market loose confidence in them, interest rate will raise and that'll be the signal budget need to be balanced. As long as price don't raise, the signal is clear: borrow. As long as it's used for investment rather than entitlements, it'll be easy to cut later on.


P.S. First, I want to share this. Comprhensive tables about the US budget going as far as history allow as spreadsheets. After having spend hours drudging for info on Belgian budgets this is awesome. I wish we had the same.

Now, concerning that 20% GDP, I wonder how much of it is due to political will. Also, while the total stay fairly constant, it's because corporate income taxes went down and was made up with payroll tax. I don't see why we couldn't get corporate tax back up and raise more money that way.

[GreatJustice]

Well, this cap seems... specious at best. For starter it's only the top tax rates that's on your graphs. It just seems weird that you can't increase tax revenues at all. Let me dig on it. Also it's funny how you defended using aboslute numbers for deficits and relative numbers for revenues.

As for US Treasuries, when the market loose confidence in them, interest rate will raise and that'll be the signal budget need to be balanced. As long as price don't raise, the signal is clear: borrow.

But Sheb, the market has ALREADY lost confidence in the US treasuries!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Confidence has dropped significantly over the years. Low interest rates are presently the result of the US effectively buying its own debt through the Fed, alongside various credit swaps being conducted alongside other major central banks (the Bank of Japan and the ECB in particular). The inevitable result of this in the near future is either a gigantic credit crisis or massive inflation.

[Sheb]

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

[mainiac]

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

[RedKing]

Can you explain that graph'?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

From what I can see, it's a graph of who holds how much of our debt? In which case, I fail to see the problem. You'd rather have China and Russia holding giant swathes of US debt rather than the Fed Reserve?

And while Chinese holdings have a slight dip in the last year, Japan has been on a buying spree. Seems Tokyo gots some mad love for the US debt. Since they're really good at taking American things and making them smaller and more efficient, maybe we can get them to do the same for our debt.

[Nadaka]

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

Is that a hyperinflation adjusted $100? if so, his bet doesn't have a very good return on his investment if he wins.