Tankus Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Why do you do this? The government CAN afford it. The fact that its pinched off the people or future people is just pedantry. heh ..you are ed balls and I claim my £5 .................................................in gold , at browns bottom price why didnt Obama go the whole hog and PFI everything , and take it off the books ? worked for brown ....er ...didnt it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) So the kids of the future should pay to for the malinvestment of the adults of today? Why wouldn't the unborn kids vote against that? Ah yes, they can't... EDIT: If parents tried to tie their children into debt bondage, there would rightly be an uproar at the abuse of human rights. Yet, the government does this all the time. Theft, violence and debt slavery are their specialities. Government debt is totally different than the other forms of debt out there. In the same way that if you had a printing press that could print legal tender.. taking out a personal loan would be a totally different context. Right now the economy is like farmland in a drought. The fertile soil is there, the minerals, the sunshine, but no water. So nothing grows, and things are dying all over. It needs a mighty rain to get things going again. I can't work if all my neighbours are broke, and they can't work if I can't pay them myself. This is getting cliche but without WW2 we would probably still be in the great depression. WW2 gave governments no choice but to run monumental deficits for 5 years straight, and print like money was going out of style. And they spent most of the money on the broken glass theory.. and it worked. Edited September 10, 2011 by aa3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 11, 2011 Author Share Posted September 11, 2011 Government debt is totally different than the other forms of debt out there. In the same way that if you had a printing press that could print legal tender.. taking out a personal loan would be a totally different context. Right now the economy is like farmland in a drought. The fertile soil is there, the minerals, the sunshine, but no water. So nothing grows, and things are dying all over. It needs a mighty rain to get things going again. I can't work if all my neighbours are broke, and they can't work if I can't pay them myself. This is getting cliche but without WW2 we would probably still be in the great depression. WW2 gave governments no choice but to run monumental deficits for 5 years straight, and print like money was going out of style. And they spent most of the money on the broken glass theory.. and it worked. Not quite WWII also destroyed the whole of Europe which needed rebuilding, if we are going for that aim we need more riots with far more destruction but on a global scale. Plus I think in running huge deficits to defeat Hitler was slightly more justified than running huge deficits so people can buy an over priced house in a bubble economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Not quite WWII also destroyed the whole of Europe which needed rebuilding, if we are going for that aim we need more riots with far more destruction but on a global scale. Plus I think in running huge deficits to defeat Hitler was slightly more justified than running huge deficits so people can buy an over priced house in a bubble economy. One very true thing is not all deficits are created equal. Spending huge on rail, bridges, scientific research and so on yields long term results. While blowing the deficit bailing out rich guys when they make bad bets and trying to prop up the selling prices of something is stupid. In WW2 the military got in control of economic planning, and brought their utilitarian thinking with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Why do you do this? The government CAN afford it. The fact that its pinched off the people or future people is just pedantry. yes, printing does give this illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammo Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I think it's not a bad idea to be fair. The US are in debt. Why not make some more debt but use it to actually have something to show for it - all this shiny new infrastructure. After all having a massive debt but with a crumbling infrastructure to boot - it means when the good times return no-one is going to be attracted to your decaying country. You simply need a good infrastructure despite having no money. They should do the same here but with a massive programme of home building as well as the roads and public buildings to go with them. F**K it, we're not actually reducing the debt anyway - don't think they've even reduced the public payroll yet have they, not in any noticable numbers. Why not go for broke (but have some actual buildings to show for it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I think it's not a bad idea to be fair. The US are in debt. Why not make some more debt but use it to actually have something to show for it - all this shiny new infrastructure. After all having a massive debt but with a crumbling infrastructure to boot - it means when the good times return no-one is going to be attracted to your decaying country. You simply need a good infrastructure despite having no money. They should do the same here but with a massive programme of home building as well as the roads and public buildings to go with them. F**K it, we're not actually reducing the debt anyway - don't think they've even reduced the public payroll yet have they, not in any noticable numbers. Why not go for broke (but have some actual buildings to show for it). point is they HAVE been doing it since 2008. |and its made not a dent in the BUST that is occuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 WW2 gave governments no choice but to run monumental deficits for 5 years straight, and print like money was going out of style. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back? LINK As the film I.O.U.S.A. says, most US debt after WWII (in the form of war bonds), was owed to US citizens. Whereas the UK was heavily indebted to the US and became their poodle ever since. I don't think Asia is willing to fund such an expansion of debt anymore, so the Fed will have to create the money to buy the US's debt out of thin air. I'm sure this will work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I don't see the American debt as a big problem really, China will not be paid back. When China realizes it's not going to get it's money back it will stop exporting to America. America will then have to start making it's own stuff. I think that there will be a time period when people will make do and mend.When the washing machine goes wrong just replace the bearing instead of buying a new machine. buy shares in gaffa tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I don't see the American debt as a big problem really Great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I don't see the American debt as a big problem really, China will not be paid back. When China realizes it's not going to get it's money back it will stop exporting to America. America will then have to start making it's own stuff. I think that there will be a time period when people will make do and mend.When the washing machine goes wrong just replace the bearing instead of buying a new machine. buy shares in gaffa tape the USA owns most of its own debt, it would need to default on its own citizens as well as china, japan, the UK, (were the 3rd biggest holders of US bonds in the world $350 billion) and everybody else. you cant just pick and choose which country you default against! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I think it's not a bad idea to be fair. The US are in debt. Why not make some more debt but use it to actually have something to show for it - all this shiny new infrastructure. Isn't that what the Japanese have been doing since the early 90s? Leading to a heck of a lot more debt and nothing much else. After all, if this 'infrastructure' was so useful, why has no-one built it yet? Ah, because it makes no financial sense but is great for funnelling money to unionised Democrat voters working in construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inflationwatch Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Stimulus? Take a look at what the IMF are saying about debt levels in advanced economies.... Adjustment, that is the word that Obama should have used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Let me give you an example. US federal spending is around 3.7 trillion. They could easily throw another 100 billion a year on scientific research. Do it through a whole bunch of different agencies and styles. That could employ 1 million people, making an average income of 100,000$ a year. What we could spend money on is only limited by the imagination of our leaders. Which is why the ideas have been so poor. Just to name a couple small areas in this time of mass unemployment why is there any trash on the streets, why are rennovations and upgrades nto being brought forward.. why don't we expand trails and amenities in public parks. If you are rich maybe you are worrying about inflation gradually eating away your savings. Well 15 million Americans do not even have a job. And they've been waiting for 2 years now for the private sector to create jobs. Anyone who understands the power of modern technology knows that the private sector will not be creating any net jobs anytime soon or ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/09/ewen-macaskill-in-washington Got to give top marks for the name, the American Jobs Act hardly propaganda at all. Would simply giving the money to the millions of unemployed be better bet at creating jobs? Although clearly not spending money you don't have is going to yield better long term results. Yet again we have politicians trying to avoid recessions. Recessions are needed in the economy and if you want to avoid them don't have massive fooking bubbles in your economy. ...did Gordo not try this ....we are still trying to unravel the public sector non jobs he created... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 ...did Gordo not try this ....we are still trying to unravel the public sector non jobs he created... The epic failure of labour imo was their incompetence in running things. Imagine two countries who embark on a 100 billion pound stimulus program. Country A sets about builing power plants, housing for the poor, increasing science research, etc.. Country B adds hundreds of thousands of lawyers, inspectors, regulators, diversity enforcement agents, climate truth inquisitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Country B adds hundreds of thousands of lawyers, inspectors, regulators, diversity enforcement agents, climate truth inquisitors. ...which added SFA to the economy...and in the case of the FSA trashed it by not controlling the retail banks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Let me give you an example. US federal spending is around 3.7 trillion. They could easily throw another 100 billion a year on scientific research. And how would that help? Most government-funded scientific research these days is already make-work ******** to keep researchers employed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cost-obamas-stimulus-plan-312500-job-vote-created-or-saved-and-guess-who-paying-it For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president's jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2% GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved... most saved, as in those you can't really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good. Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5% which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job, er job created (including interest). Surely it would just be cheaper to give people $50,000 and see what they can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFlibble Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) Surely it would just be cheaper to give people $50,000 and see what they can do? Obama's in a world of hurt, he might want to pick up a box of Just For Men too as it's starting to show badly I was listening to Schiff Radio the other day and he was going through the job subsidy schemes on offer. The best one was for an ex-services person with a disability, basically if you give him employment and pay him minimum wage the employer nets in excess of a buck an hour, the employee can simply sit on the couch at home as the subsidy will cover his entire wage too. Winner, winner, chicken dinner, not for the taxpayer though. Fantasy economics is all that's left from the looks of it... Edited September 13, 2011 by MrFlibble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Obama's in a world of hurt, he might want to pick up a box of Just For Men too as it's starting to show badly I was listening to Schiff Radio the other day and he was going through the job subsidy schemes on offer. The best one was for an ex-services person with a disability, basically if you give him employment and pay him minimum wage the employer nets in excess of a buck an hour, the employee can simply sit on the couch at home as the subsidy will cover his entire wage too. Winner, winner, chicken dinner, not for the taxpayer though. Fantasy economics is all that's left from the looks of it... Sounds like a massive fraud just waiting to happen, I'd quite happily employ 100 people at that rate. I wouldn't actually do anything and neither would my employees but at least I could feel like a banker do nothing productive and get paid albeit only at $100 an hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Isn't that what the Japanese have been doing since the early 90s? Leading to a heck of a lot more debt and nothing much else. After all, if this 'infrastructure' was so useful, why has no-one built it yet? Ah, because it makes no financial sense but is great for funnelling money to unionised Democrat voters working in construction. By this definition, Motorway systems, electric grids reaching the whole population, sewerage systems and the internet made no financial sense and are useless.. Big infrastructure projects only pay indirectly - i.e. by increasing the productivity of the whole economy. Hence the only realistic way to pay is through general taxation. Now, it's certainly possible to overdo it (a la Japan), but if you want to make the argument that the UK already has an excellent transport system, cheap electricity, ultra fast broadband available to all homes, an oversupply of good quality housing, etc, etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terribad Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 By this definition, Motorway systems, electric grids reaching the whole population, sewerage systems and the internet made no financial sense and are useless.. Big infrastructure projects only pay indirectly - i.e. by increasing the productivity of the whole economy. Hence the only realistic way to pay is through general taxation. Now, it's certainly possible to overdo it (a la Japan), but if you want to make the argument that the UK already has an excellent transport system, cheap electricity, ultra fast broadband available to all homes, an oversupply of good quality housing, etc, etc.. I presume he was refering to useless infrastructure like the Bridge to Nowhere, etc. Every country seems to have a useless bridge or two. Or suplus stadia, Millenium Domes, and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 By this definition, Motorway systems, electric grids reaching the whole population, sewerage systems and the internet made no financial sense and are useless.. Sewer systems don't make financial sense??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFlibble Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Sewer systems don't make financial sense??? Given the amount of shit the Banksters produce we absolutely must have good sewer systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.