PDA

View Full Version : little bout surplus, etc. from another thread...



sack316
03-08-2010, 06:12 PM
I originally posted this as a response in the 'trust' thread. but after posting it I thought of how it didn't really go with the topic at hand there, but rather only one sentence from another reply, so am creating a new thread for it. A little context may be lost:



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A long way to get back to a projected five trillion dollar surplus following the Clinton Administration.
</div></div>

Where's that number come from? Even in the glory days of 1998, even President Clinton's OWN projection for the next ten years was $1.1 trillion, not 5. And his own was also far more than the CBO projection of the time.

Then the key question, as usual, becomes "Why?", as in why such projections?

Well, the Clinton admin saw a few things they felt the CBO was underestimating or ignoring: That White House thought that there would be slower growth in Medicare spending. Smaller increases in CPI (consumer price index)... which in turn leads to slower growth in Fed. spending on benefit programs linked to inflation. They also believed strong economic growth was ahead, and would in turn produce higher federal revenues... couple that with their outlook on the lessened benefit programs and indeed, one can see how a large surplus would be estimated.

If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts... well we all know the rest.

Reality was that the changes in domestic economy at the time were modest at best. Absolutely nothing to scoff at, but still far from the rosy constraints needed to satisfy Clinton's estimates.

One may also recall in late '97/early '98 financial crisis in Asia. Which to economists would be a signal to "look out" because that doesn't bode well for the American economy, Wall Street, or Federal revenues.

Now, to Mr. Clinton's credit, I don't believe he was blowing smoke or just trying to make himself look better. There were actually several years where he produced an deficit that wound up beating his own predictions for those years (an example is '97, where his own estimate was a deficit of $37 bil, and turned out to 'only' be $22 bil!) So as always, credit where credit is do. Whether I disagree with him or not, whether I agree on figures between those of us here... one cannot deny that the man did do the best job on the budget out of anyone in recent history.

So where do such numbers come from? How did it change? etc.? Well, besides the obvious Bush screw ups (the easy answer) there is slightly more.

The rosy projections are based on leaving everything 'as is'. i.e. the nation/world remain stagnant, no unforeseen scenarios come up, no changes in policy, no new programs, etc. etc. etc. If everything stays exactly as is at that moment, and all else goes as hoped, then the figures by either the CBO or Clinton at the time could be valid.

Unfortunately, it's crazy to assume we would do nothing new or anything else. In fact, with things looking better and better, one SHOULD assume complacency is the last thing that will come of it. Especially with money burning a hole in politicians pockets (please, nobody deny that is the case for either side of the aisle. If they'll spend money we don't have, we damn sure know they'd spend money we do have). Also not factored in so well was the first wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age, and qualifying for age depending benefits (i.e. tossing a wrench into the Clinton hope of slowing benefit spending).

Also of note missing from the equation of budgets was social security. Which, even under those rosiest of conditions and height of budget optimism, was still at that moment projected to be taking in less than it paid out by 2012.

If anyone looks up articles from the first half of 1998 on this, you'll see most or all of those factors listed in the debate as to what/how much surplus there actually will/would be.

Now, the rest of it that also would be left out of articles from '98 presented the first variable that would send all those projections into chaos, that nobody seemed to see coming, was the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000. Remember that nice boom in the 90's? The one that allowed for all those projected gov't revenues to exceed even their own expectations due to an insane amount of money flying around all over the place? in tech. market value alone, over $5 TRILLION was wiped out in only 2 years. That kind of change in that one sector, at that time, can really render projections of '98 to nearly a moot point on its own.

So what of all that I said? Well, none of it changes the screw ups Bush made, of course. And also, none of it changes that Clinton did indeed do a great job on the budget. BUT, one must realize that any 'surplus' at the time and any projections tied to it, were volatile at best and dependent on what was good to continue throughout. We all know that is simply not how the world works. More recently, had the housing boom (bubble) continued to grow rather than burst, we'd be sitting quite pretty even now. Had the tech boom (bubble) continued to grow rather than burst, we'd be sitting even prettier. But booms turn to blips and bubbles do burst. And that can throw everything off from top to bottom in what seems like an instant when we look back.

The good news? The math still works the same in reverse. So what are dire estimates of deficits for the future can also be beaten if, for example, some other boom comes along that would not be factored in currently. Something such as alternative energy could be the favorite to achieve this even. Or could be a resurgence of American cars. Could be something we don't even think about right now.

The possible bad news? We have to learn our lesson on how we look at booms and bubbles when they do come. We cannot make the same mistakes of assuming that they will always be there and continue to grow infinitely. We have a habit of seeing "boom" and more "$$$" and think, well we can spend it to do things! Then when it busts, we are hesitant to reduce that extra spending. Think of a story of someone who gets a good paying job, and begins a lifestyle that suits their new status. Buying cars, nice home, all the things he/she wants because, well why not? Then suddenly that job is lost, but he/she doesn't want to give up that lifestyle. We all know how that story goes. And that's pretty much exactly what we as a nation do on a grander scale.

Sack

LWW
03-08-2010, 06:29 PM
There was no Clinton surplus.

LWW

cushioncrawler
03-08-2010, 06:36 PM
Sack -- This iz still all krappynomix.
If i woz asked to check the health of a country (ie financial health etc) i wouldnt be very interested in the country's deficits or tax rate or spending etc. There would be lots of things i would look at first.
The deficits would hav allmost zero importance -- with the exception that if i found any sign of general illness then i might hav a close look at the deficits -- but i wouldnt look at the deficits thru the eyes of a krappynomicyst.
madMac.

sack316
03-08-2010, 06:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was no Clinton surplus.

LWW </div></div>

I've had that argument on here before. Don't really seek to get into it again as I found it to be rather pointless.

Regardless of how one wishes to interpret numbers 2 things do remain:

1) Clinton, surplus or no, did do the best job with the budget out of anyone in recent history. I'm a righty, and admitting that one.

2) The long term projections of however many trillions in surplus anyone wants to say, were fairy tales. I'll grant all day that Bush messed a lot up, and probably put us in worse shape. But given all factors involved, even if Clinton had been president for 16 years, we would not have met his or the CBO's forecast.

Sack

cushioncrawler
03-08-2010, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was no Clinton surplus. LWW</div></div>Thats korrekt. The official figures hav allways been propaganda only. I hav seen real estimates of the real clinton etc deficits somewhere.
madMac.

Qtec
03-08-2010, 06:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1) Clinton, surplus or no, did do the best job with the budget out of anyone in recent history. I'm a righty, and admitting that one. </div></div>

That must have hurt.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

sack316
03-08-2010, 06:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack -- This iz still all krappynomix.
If i woz asked to check the health of a country (ie financial health etc) i wouldnt be very interested in the country's deficits or tax rate or spending etc. There would be lots of things i would look at first.
The deficits would hav allmost zero importance -- with the exception that if i found any sign of general illness then i might hav a close look at the deficits -- but i wouldnt look at the deficits thru the eyes of a krappynomicyst.
madMac. </div></div>

I dunno. What you said there would be akin to checking the health of a company you may be interested in investing in. I'd hope, in such a case you would be interested in that company's debt ratio, overhead, income, etc.

No matter what other factors you may be speaking of (quality of the people, niceness, clean bathrooms, pictures of unicorns in the lobby, whatever) it won't equate to much success if they spend way more than they take in--- barring obviously initial investments poised for growth.

So too, may go a country. JMHO

Sack

sack316
03-08-2010, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1) Clinton, surplus or no, did do the best job with the budget out of anyone in recent history. I'm a righty, and admitting that one. </div></div>

That must have hurt.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Not at all. If it benefits my country I'm happy to see it regardless of where it came from. If, in 2012, there are obvious signs that Obama's plans on jobs, economy, and debt look to be on par (or even close to) his hopes, I'd vote for him. Whether I agree with the policies and the "how" or not, I wouldn't argue with results.

Sack

Qtec
03-08-2010, 06:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">March 30, 2001 Issue Brief #154
.

BUSH'S FUZZY SURPLUSES
Tax cuts based on CBO's 10-year predictions <span style='font-size: 20pt'>are a gamble the economy can't risk</span><span style="color: #CC0000">WOW! What a prediction.</span>

by Christian E. Weller

Relying on a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection of a $5.6 trillion budget surplus, President Bush has proposed an aggressive $1.6 trillion tax cut <span style='font-size: 20pt'>as if the surplus had already filled the treasury's coffers. The CBO projections, though, are problematic because they are just that - rough guesses of what will happen in a hard-to-know future.</span> The consequences of the tax cuts, on the other hand, are not at all uncertain. Such cuts are permanent changes in the tax code and mean permanent reductions in government revenue.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Budget projections are an art, not a science. The projections of a $3.1 trillion on-budget surplus over the next 10 years reflect a good faith estimate by CBO of what the world may look like. But, as is true of all predictions, CBO's contain a large amount of guesswork.</span> Enacting permanent tax changes that will have the largest effect on the federal budget five to 10 years into the future, and that are based on uncertain predictions, is bad policy.

The CBO projections are risky for several reasons: </div></div>

Q

cushioncrawler
03-08-2010, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack -- This iz still all krappynomix. If i woz asked to check the health of a country (ie financial health etc) i wouldnt be very interested in the country's deficits or tax rate or spending etc. There would be lots of things i would look at first. The deficits would hav allmost zero importance -- with the exception that if i found any sign of general illness then i might hav a close look at the deficits -- but i wouldnt look at the deficits thru the eyes of a krappynomicyst.</div></div>I dunno. What you said there would be akin to checking the health of a company you may be interested in investing in. I'd hope, in such a case you would be interested in that company's debt ratio, overhead, income, etc.
No matter what other factors you may be speaking of (quality of the people, niceness, clean bathrooms, pictures of unicorns in the lobby, whatever) it won't equate to much success if they spend way more than they take in--- barring obviously initial investments poised for growth. So too, may go a country. JMHO. Sack</div></div>A company iz different -- prezent profit and future profit are of course paramount.
A country iz different -- present and future health wealth happyness etc are not the main thing -- they are the only thing.
Some sort of stupid krappynomical attitude to deficits iz in fakt toxik (can be toxik).
madMac.

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 08:57 PM
[quote=sack3161) Clinton, surplus or no, did do the best job with the budget out of anyone in recent history. I'm a righty, and admitting that one.


Sack [/quote]

Clinton did not spend money like a drunken sailor the way Bush and Obama did/are doing. He also had the benefit of a very strong economy (where did that come from, anyway?) and no huge crises to deal with.

As you pointed out, several factors contributed to a weakening economy in the last decade. Combined with massive spending, things began to crumble very quickly.

The banks contributed with their less than stellar lending practices, the housing boom backfired when demand outpaced supply, and the artificially high home prices came crashing down to reality. Only a handful of the dot-coms were stable enough to survive the long term. So with an unstable base, combined with the spending habits of Bush and Obama, we have quite a mess on our hands.

When the economy dictated action, businesses did what made sense...they downsized, stopped any unnecessary spending, and were ready to ride out the storm. Our government has done just the opposite. They are trying to expand, and spending money we don't have.

I think if we had business people running the government rather than a bunch of lawyers, we would be far better off.

Steve

sack316
03-09-2010, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A company iz different -- prezent profit and future profit are of course paramount.
A country iz different -- present and future health wealth happyness etc are not the main thing -- they are the only thing.
Some sort of stupid krappynomical attitude to deficits iz in fakt toxik (can be toxik).
madMac. </div></div>

As usual, you should know I truly do enjoy your thoughts.

But as far as validity of them, for the moment shall we ask Iceland? Maybe (less directly related) Zimbabwe? Maybe US if anyone decides it's about time to call in our debts?

Ah but again, how I do love your thoughts. If only health, happiness, etc. were the only things. That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it is not reality. And if by some chance the world tried to make that a reality... it wouldn't be enough for humankind anyway. Just not in our nature. (i.e. if everyone were wealthy, nobody would be wealthy... for example)

Sack

sack316
03-09-2010, 01:31 AM
Exactly Steve.

Sack

LWW
03-09-2010, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was no Clinton surplus.

LWW </div></div>

I've had that argument on here before. Don't really seek to get into it again as I found it to be rather pointless.

Regardless of how one wishes to interpret numbers 2 things do remain:

1) Clinton, surplus or no, did do the best job with the budget out of anyone in recent history. I'm a righty, and admitting that one.

Sack </div></div>

His era, yes. Him, no.

Return to the news of that era and you will find that Clinton opposed every effort of congress to reduce the deficit.

Similar to Iraq and dearest leader, only when the policy was successful did they embrace it and attempt to take credit for it.

LWW

Deeman3
03-09-2010, 09:32 AM
Sack,

Great analysis. My concern is over the much more remote possibility of seeing rallys like we had in the 1980's and 90's in the near future. While the old engine of the economy, free enterprise, is on the ropes and the baseless exuberence of the 90's probably can't exist anymore.

Much of the growth and, therefore, surplus that we had was not real, based entirely on overinflated real estate and projections of growth that was just not sustainable, even in the good times.

With downward pressure on wages probably here to stay if we believe, rationally, that unemployment is not a short term problem along with the economic underclass growing much faster than jobs or the wealth producing population, we face a stagnation of spending (aside form government money printing) that may never allow a consumer market to re-emerge in our lifetimes.

Greece is not an anomily. It is only the first of many countries to be exposed. Here, we have State after State with unfunded pension liabilities that "retire" cops, teachers and politicians at emormous rates after short careers, disability of some professions at near 40% (Metro Cops) all coming due in a few short years. Bill Clinton and the Gipper did not have to face this and Bush was able to play it off as well with a coconspirator congress, aside from a few.

To his credit, Obama may be trying show more real numbers only the cure her suggests, more big entitlements, is not what most of us would offer. If you look, you see the engine I talked about earlier, dying as we speak. If health care reform would, indeed, save money, it would help. Fortunately, the average American sees this as what it is, a tranfer of coverage from the working and retiring class to the recipient class and do not want it.

I expect the Dems will fall on thier collective swords for this but only the foolish see savings out of this 2,500 page grab for power and influence.

Health Care is really broken. Too bad Obama left repairing it to the most corrupt body in our government. Now it is a sham.

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 10:09 AM
Where have I read these exact words before, Deeman?

G.

Deeman3
03-09-2010, 10:19 AM
Gayle,

I am not sure. I may have written something very similar in the past but do not remember specifically. What are you saying? Am I wrong?

I think, like you, that we need comprehensive health care reform but that it now has become a political football, something I am sure I have said before. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I have never blamed Obama for the current mess in our economic situation. My oppostition is to the way we are trying to spend our way out. I do know you have to make some boost to the economy but feel, like others, the TARP as well as stimulus funds are not the best investments in job creation although both parties are to blame on the actual manner that they were appropriated. I am not, like many on the right, for massive tax cuts right now but am also opposed to massive tax increases.

What about cutting spending in a meaningful way? Do we need over 300 military bases? Do we need all the government we have now?

Why could intellegent folks not get together and work out a real health care reform? It may be too late as party lines are drawn but I think, back in early 2009 there was a window that Obama missed and passing it on to Congress was suicidal for any good bill.

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,

I am not sure. I may have written something very similar in the past but do not remember specifically. What are you saying? Am I wrong?

I think, like you, that we need comprehensive health care reform but that it now has become a political football, something I am sure I have said before. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I have never blamed Obama for the current mess in our economic situation. My oppostition is to the way we are trying to spend our way out. I do know you have to make some boost to the economy but feel, like others, the TARP as well as stimulus funds are not the best investments in job creation although both parties are to blame on the actual manner that they were appropriated. I am not, like many on the right, for massive tax cuts right now but am also opposed to massive tax increases.

What about cutting spending in a meaningful way? Do we need over 300 military bases? Do we need all the government we have now?

Why could intellegent folks not get together and work out a real health care reform? It may be too late as party lines are drawn but I think, back in early 2009 there was a window that Obama missed and passing it on to Congress was suicidal for any good bill. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Wow, I agree with most everything you just wrote! Maybe I should play the lottery today?

Deeman, I know I've written this before, I don't think anyone in America other than the wealthy bankers and hedge funders, and mortgage crooks, was happy about bailing out Wall Street, but what do you think would have happened if we hadn't done it? I didn't think either TARP, or the Stimulus were expected to make a big increase in jobs, given the rate at which we were losing them. I think both were desinged to prevent a complete collapse.

The stimulus is said to have succeeded. It did prevent many, many more Job losses, five million alone iif we had let the autmobile industry flop.

As for your other ideas, I agree up to a point. I don't believe it would hurt the economy to raise taxes on families making over a quarter of a million a year, nor to raise them on the top 1%.

I am all for closing down these wasteful military bases around the world. As someone who worked at Andrews Air Force Base, as a teenager, I can surely vouch for the huge and exorbitant spending that goes on in the Military. The Officers Clubs spend like Republican Senators.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<span style="color: #000066">I agree also, that the President miscalculated the best way to go forward when he turned things over to the Congress. He was naive to think that Republicans would not vote in a block, and would not aim to obstruct any progress. He wasted a lot of time working toward bi-partisanship cooperation.

Now, here we are closer than ever to making a start at Health Care Reform. I am angry that Republicans in unison, repeated their same old tired talking points over and over, during that last White House Meeting. Start Over???? WTF!

We don't know what will come out of the house, but I think the bill will be streamlined, with a focus on the Middle Class in this country, and I HOPE taxes will be raised atleast for the top 1% in this country.

I would like to see Blanch Lincoln, Landrieu, the gang of twelve, all lose their seats. I don't even care who gets them, repub or dem.

I'd also like to see the same biggest recievers of Health Insurance Contributions on the right, lose their seats, McConnell, Boehner, and the rest of the pawns of Health Care Insurance and Pharmaceutical money....

I'd really love to see an election come around where the representatives who vote to protect the corporate thieves, against the best interests of the masses in our country, ALL lose their seats.

But, given the findings of the Supreme Court recently, how much do any of our votes mean now?

I agree, that the TARP, and the Stimulus, was difficult and apinful for all of us, but I do believe that it had to be done.

We don't know yet how much of that money will come back, but we do know that it has been coming back. WE don't know will be in the final incarnation of the health care bill, either, but I would predict, regardless of how good the bill will be, Republicans will vote against it in a block.

This is what really makes me furious. I see absolutely nothing but diversion away from the important issues. Here we are in a situatuion where our backs are against the wall on these health and insurance costs, and they have to drag in abortion, death panels, birthers, and all of the usual Bs from the right, when we need to get something done.

Yes, twelve Democratics have been just as bad, but you have to admit, there was never any intention at all from the right to work in a bi-partisan manner, to get anything at all accomplished in Washington D.C.

That's what really frosts my butt!

Yes, government could be streamlined, and far more efficient. From what I've been told, I can only say that I believe this president, once he can get this health care bill behind him, and believe me, he's been working on creating jobs all along, one of his most determined goals is to streamline the Federal Government, make it more efficient, and save the tax payers money.

We shall see what comes in a very few days now, but I can tell you one things, there won't be a big vote bonanza for either party, if something doesn't get accomplished. There are more people worried about their health costs going up, insurance costs going up, and being denied altogether, than not, in this country.

I do believe that overall the president is doing a good job, given everything he is facing. Things are improving, I believe notably, in Pakistan. The U. S. has just negotiated an agreement between the Palestines and Israel for talks. More terrorists are being killed by drones, and less civilians are being killed. Job losses are dropping, which they usually do for a time before they gain, consumer confidence is up, and there really has been a massive amount of good legislation passed by this congress, one of the hardest working congresses in history.

The divisions in our country are about things that should not even be part of our political discussion, IMO.

Private, personal family decisions, religious philosophy, fights about who can and can't serve in the military, or acquire a marriage liscense, non of thie should come into any of our government affairs on policy.

This, I blame completely on the right, as you know, and think as well that unless we come to adopt a live and let live policy about personal, private issues, we will never go forwar on anything. This is a big part of our problem as a nation.




G.</span>

pooltchr
03-09-2010, 11:48 AM
How can you say that Obama wants to streamline the government, when he spent his first year in office trying to create a brand new huge government healthcare burocracy?

Steve

LWW
03-09-2010, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can you say that Obama wants to streamline the government, when he spent his first year in office trying to create a brand new huge government healthcare burocracy?

Steve </div></div>

How can you blame a partisan for repeating what they hear?

When Obama explains that he is for expanding the state they will agree that he wants to expand the state and that it is good.

When Obama explains that he is for streamlining the state they will agree that he wants to streamline the state and that it is good.

Once you realize that they are merely repeating what they are told to repeat, the apparent conflict goes away.

It's simply doublethink on display, and doesn't surprise me in the least.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.ask.com/web?q=Federal+Government+Budget+Surplus&qsrc=6&o=0&l=dir

Go to Page 19

Deeman3
03-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Gayle,

I also am shocked that we do agree on so much. The sky will certainly fall tomorrow. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
03-09-2010, 01:33 PM
Mack, now I may be remembering wrong...but I believe that I read several years back that currency loses 50% of it's value every ten years ("the dollar lost about three-fourths of its value between 1965 to 1985)...also read that it takes 7 years to double your money at the old savings interest rate....which means that you break out about even...so why save...spend and enjoy!!!!
The currency thing as it relates to the country's debt, actually works in our favor....so it's claimed.
Problem is with the nation's debt...(we used to be a lender nation, now we are borrowing from third world countries)....
Everyone here owes $40643.54 as their fair share of the debt, but since it increases by $3.98 billion per day ....I don't think we can even just service the debt.

sack316
03-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Deeman, Gayle, great posts both of you.

Sack

Qtec
03-09-2010, 06:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fortunately, the average American sees this as what it is, a tranfer of coverage from the working and retiring class to the recipient class and do not want it. </div></div>

What rubbish! Anything to back up that ridiculous statement.

Q

cushioncrawler
03-09-2010, 10:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A company iz different -- prezent profit and future profit are of course paramount. A country iz different -- present and future health wealth happyness etc are not the main thing -- they are the only thing. Some sort of stupid krappynomical attitude to deficits iz in fakt toxik (can be toxik).</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, you should know I truly do enjoy your thoughts. But as far as validity of them, for the moment shall we ask Iceland? Maybe (less directly related) Zimbabwe? Maybe US if anyone decides it's about time to call in our debts? Ah but again, how I do love your thoughts. If only health, happiness, etc. were the only things. That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it is not reality. And if by some chance the world tried to make that a reality... it wouldn't be enough for humankind anyway. Just not in our nature. (i.e. if everyone were wealthy, nobody would be wealthy... for example)</div></div>My understanding iz that the Iceland gov lost money koz Iceland gov krappynomicysts had invested in overseas banks -- when themz overseas banks went under. I can say a lot about this sort of thing but i havnt got time -- suffice to say that it haz little to do with anything i hav been saying. It remindz me that a local gov council here in Ozz allso did the same thing az Iceland and lost millions and millions.

Zimbabwe iznt "less direktly related" to Iceland -- there iz zero relativity.

Likewiz the reference to usofa "debts" -- overseas debts hav zero relevence to "deficits" -- and we are talking about deficits.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
03-09-2010, 10:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mack, now I may be remembering wrong...but I believe that I read several years back that currency loses 50% of it's value every ten years ("the dollar lost about three-fourths of its value between 1965 to 1985)...also read that it takes 7 years to double your money at the old savings interest rate....which means that you break out about even...so why save...spend and enjoy!!!!
The currency thing as it relates to the country's debt, actually works in our favor....so it's claimed.
Problem is with the nation's debt...(we used to be a lender nation, now we are borrowing from third world countries)....
Everyone here owes $40643.54 as their fair share of the debt, but since it increases by $3.98 billion per day ....I don't think we can even just service the debt.</div></div>Overseas debt iz a komplikated subjekt -- and private or gov it haztabe payed somehow sometime.
Notso internal gov debt -- internal gov debt (ie deficits) duznt havtabe payed back -- private debt duzhavtabe, unless its husband to wife (ie internal household debt).
Hmmmmmmmm -- i wonder if a wife can take a husband to court to recover money -- probly can if they hav a marriage contrakt -- praps karnt if they dont.
madMac.

sack316
03-09-2010, 11:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Likewiz the reference to usofa "debts" -- overseas debts hav zero relevence to "deficits" -- and we are talking about deficits.
madMac. </div></div>

Again, I will say I do enjoy your thoughts and hopes of what should be.

As far as logical discussion of the topic, well that sentence just blew any credibility you had of having any factual knowledge of how any of this matter works. By definition:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An accumulated governmental deficit over several years (or decades) is referred to as the government debt </div></div>

and then

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government debt is usually financed by borrowing, although if a government's debt is denominated in its own currency it can print new currency to pay debts. </div></div>

What is it you think it is when someone (domestic or overseas, individual or other government) invests in government bonds, for example. Say Oz buys US govn't bonds. We are in essence borrowing money (which is why there is value, as it is a promise to be paid back with interest). Hence, we owe (have a debt to) the purchaser. Balance a checkbook, do a ledger, or whatever... but that goes in a little red column or has a minus sign in front of it... and is added to the deficit (or deducted from a surplus if there is one).

In other words, the two are directly related (among other things, of course)... and are surely not of "zero relevence" to each other as you said.

Then there was

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zimbabwe iznt "less direktly related" to Iceland -- there iz zero relativity.</div></div>

well, again by the book:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monetizing debts, however, can cause rapid inflation </div></div>

So if you indeed do fail to see any relation between those situations, then you certainly have a generous lack of understanding of how things actually work. No, they are obviously not a direct mirror image, but many facets are the very same. For example, ask why Mickey D's pulls out of Iceland, and ask why 3 eggs costs $100 bil in Zimbabwe. The answer is truly relative.

But still, I do enjoy the bright pictures you paint about when you are king.

Sack

wolfdancer
03-10-2010, 12:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i wonder if a wife can take a husband to court to recover money </div></div>
Probably not...but she can take him to the cleaners...

eg8r
03-10-2010, 07:36 AM
Gayle the fact is this, Clinton saying he had a surplus is no different than Bush standing in front of the Mission Accomplished sign. Smoke and mirrors.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 07:38 AM
Ed,
The link is above.

Deeman3
03-10-2010, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fortunately, the average American sees this as what it is, a tranfer of coverage from the working and retiring class to the recipient class and do not want it. </div></div>

What rubbish! Anything to back up that ridiculous statement.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Q,

If we are to insure 31 million Americans who cannot afford insurance now, how else can it possibly be anything but a transfer of money and resources?

I know you are not at times rational but I can't see anyone not understanding that. Do you think we are going to get those funds from the ones who now can't pay for their own health care? Wow!</span>

pooltchr
03-10-2010, 09:10 AM
Deeman,
The funds will come from forcing everyone to buy insurance. By forcing more younger healthier people to buy insurance, the premiums collected by the insurance companies can help keep costs lower for older people.

If you want to do some interesting research, see how many billions are guaranteed to the insurance companies under this bill. If I ran an insurance company, I would be overjoyed at the prospects of the government forcing people to buy my product!

How would your business feel if the government told everyone in the country they needed to buy a new car, or face a fine from the IRS.

It's so odd to see the left crying about the insurance companies, and then supporting a bill that is going to guarantee their revenue stream.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fortunately, the average American sees this as what it is, a tranfer of coverage from the working and retiring class to the recipient class and do not want it. </div></div>

What rubbish! Anything to back up that ridiculous statement.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Q,

If we are to insure 31 million Americans who cannot afford insurance now, how else can it possibly be anything but a transfer of money and resources?

I know you are not at times rational but I can't see anyone not understanding that. Do you think we are going to get those funds from the ones who now can't pay for their own health care? Wow!</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Since Q isn't on here right now, I'm going to offer a few suggestions.

First of all, the questions is, IMO, are the unsurance companies treating their customers fairly. I think that if that basic major plank of all of this cannot be agreed upon, nothing else regarding the issue can be solved.

WE know thses atrocities against their clients were not happening back when health insurance was non profit.

We know that the source of their huge profits is acquired according to the number insured, and the number of ill they can dump, or deprive of service.

To my way of thinking there is no question that they do not operate with any dignity, nor with any self-regulatory consumer based consideration, if they are constantly looking for reasons to drop those who have paid them to provide insurance against being bankrupted by health costs.

We know the negative impact their business practices have had, and will continue to have, on citizens and businesses, and the country's economy in general, has been devastating, when we look at the whole scheme of things, from jobs out-sourced, to mortgage defaults, not to mention personal economic ruination.

Then there is the actual loss of life, and human suffering, both physical and mental, resulting from their practices.

As Mr. T. R. Reid, whose book ( healing America ) I highlight in another thread, addresses, the working people of countries with universal health care are far more productive when they know that if they lose their job, or become ill, they will not lose everything. While their taxes are higher, when polled, none of them balk about their taxes, and they do not want to give up their universal care. Obviously, if they did, they would all have done away with it by now, but the studies show that the longer they have it, the more popular it becomes.

In our country, there is far too much fraud. The President has just announced his new plan for attacking fraud in Medicare, and Medicaid, and will pay that army of investigators on percentage, for the number of these freeloaders they can catch, good pLan, IMO.

So now we have government spending and waste in general. My thinking leads me to believe that to meet a challenge often requires other challenges to be overcome, and that by aiming to provide universal health care for all of our citizens, government spending, and fraud in the venue of entitlements, would both be targets.

Now some, like the eyore's of the world, or those who distrust, or simply do not like this president, or are partisans first, and Americans second, then we have our tax costs above all else freaks, anyway, some will not for a moment believe that this government can attack spending and fraud and succeed.

I am not one of those.

I believe it can be done, and also that with this man in office, it will be done. I think that the goal is an honorable one, and that the greedy Life Insurance, Pharmaceutical and health industry, will only become greedier, if we do not address this problem.

Let us recall the face that twenty years or so ago, CEO's made thirty time what their employess made, and today, they make over 300 times what their employees make.

While 09 was a terrible year for many, many Americans, who lost everything, the number of millionaires increased by 16% in that year.

We have seen over these last years, record corporate profits, as we have watched the Middle Class in our country lose everything, many of them, working hard, longer hours, two jobs, and still they do not move forward.

These facts cannot be denied, and at some point they must be addressed. The fact that many thousands die without health care every year, in the richest country in the world, is truly a commentary to our unchristian, greedy segment at the top, who spend billions upon billions every day, to buy our representatives, and pay them off, in order to continue bilking their fellow Americans.

This is not at all what is meant by the "Free Market" IMO, even if we had never had this crash, we did not, and do not, have what is thought of as a free market,

That ideology must be understood, acknowledged and addressed by us as a nation, if we are to maintain the American Dream, and defend the principles of our founders original ideas about life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness.

I might add, this Supreme Court, just threw the biggest wrench into those principles ever thrown. Those who voted yeah, should be voted out, through a new preceedure of some kind, IMO. Thier votes were the single most destructive act ever prosecuted against the Constitution of this country.




G.</span>

Deeman3
03-10-2010, 10:16 AM
Gayle,

I see your points but Q's questioning of my statement in his highlighted quote is still not clear. Anyway you look at it, right or wrong, this is a transfer of wealth. It can't be any other way. Even the claimed potential savings of an optimistic Obama can't approach the additional costs of insuring 31 million people. Someone has to pay for it. It may be humanitarian on it's face but it is welfare and will cost people who have to give up Medicare coverage at present levels and those who are now paying for thier normal insurance costs plus the added costs of the uninsured. Of course, there is a cost to covering the uninsured now but it will go up, not down as people swamp the system once it is more available.

Also, I did not know Health Care was ever not for profit, especially in the insurance industry. ???

pooltchr
03-10-2010, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, I did not know Health Care was ever not for profit, especially in the insurance industry. ??? </div></div>

I was wondering about that myself. When were the insurance companies ever non-profit?

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,

I see your points but Q's questioning of my statement in his highlighted quote is still not clear. Anyway you look at it, right or wrong, this is a transfer of wealth. It can't be any other way. Even the claimed potential savings of an optimistic Obama can't approach the additional costs of insuring 31 million people. Someone has to pay for it. It may be humanitarian on it's face but it is welfare and will cost people who have to give up Medicare coverage at present levels and those who are now paying for thier normal insurance costs plus the added costs of the uninsured. Of course, there is a cost to covering the uninsured now but it will go up, not down as people swamp the system once it is more available.

Also, I did not know Health Care was ever not for profit, especially in the insurance industry. ??? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, I did not know Health Care was ever not for profit, especially in the insurance industry. ??? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">To be honest, I never knew that health Insurance was non profit, either. I heard Mr. T.R. Reid alude to that during the "In Depth" interview on C-span, last sundey.

I'm assuming he is correct. That was before my time, though, so I can't prove it right now.

He is an expert on the subject, so I doubt that he is wrong.

I have provided the link to the entire discussion in another thread.

As for your statements, Deeman, I think there are a number of ways to provide universal health care for all of our citizens, as I have outlined above. One of the main ways is to drive down the costs.

Let me ask, if the CEO salaries have gone from 30 dollars to every one dollar the employee gets, to over 300 dollars, to every one dollar the employee gets, do you think that drives up costs for the consumers?

Is that redistribution of wealth?

Are the corporations providing more, or less, to their employees?

I can anwer that one for you, far less than ever in our history.

Are tax breaks on investments, for those with the money to invest, redistribution of wealth?

Is a dollar today, worth more than a dollar ten years from now?

As things stand right now, those without HC are absolutely costing us more now, than they would, if we had universal health care for everyone.

There is no more expensive care than in the emergency room, and those costs, according to several experts I have listened to, have never been fully accounted for, but they play a huge roll in the high cost of all hospital treatment, which, as we all know, is colossally high!

The emergency room is where everyone who is not covered, goes for their treatment.

With the predicted HUGE rise in costs, those numbers also will rise.

How do other countries produce medicine, some of them, at one tenth the cost that American consumers pay? We pay the highest price of any country! What do you think the pharmaceutical CEO's are currently making, with bonuses?

As for the redistribution factor, isn't that what our government does when they spend ridiculous amounts of money on private contractors during wartime? We've akll heard about all the waste that entails.

We are behind the times on addressing this problem. Other countried with universal health care are happy with it. they demonstarate in the streets, because they get angry over the way the American Media lies about their satisfaction with their health care, which, BTW, they seem to have better results, statistically, on loads of health care issues,

Now why is that?

G.</span>

cushioncrawler
03-10-2010, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Likewiz the reference to usofa "debts" -- overseas debts hav zero relevence to "deficits" -- and we are talking about deficits. madMac.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, I will say I do enjoy your thoughts and hopes of what should be. As far as logical discussion of the topic, well that sentence just blew any credibility you had of having any factual knowledge of how any of this matter works. By definition:</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An accumulated governmental deficit over several years (or decades) is referred to as the government debt</div></div>Yes thats ok -- az long az we are talking about the same type of debt.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and then </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government debt is usually financed by borrowing, although if a government's debt is denominated in its own currency it can print new currency to pay debts.</div></div>This aktually agrees with what i say -- there iz no need to finance debt.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is it you think it is when someone (domestic or overseas, individual or other government) invests in government bonds, for example. Say Oz buys US govn't bonds. We are in essence borrowing money (which is why there is value, as it is a promise to be paid back with interest). Hence, we owe (have a debt to) the purchaser. Balance a checkbook, do a ledger, or whatever... but that goes in a little red column or has a minus sign in front of it... and is added to the deficit (or deducted from a surplus if there is one). In other words, the two are directly related (among other things, of course)... and are surely not of "zero relevence" to each other as you said. Then there was</div></div>Others buying usofa bonds etc iz yet another different thing -- they of course dont get the bonds etc for nothing, az u say.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zimbabwe iznt "less direktly related" to Iceland -- there iz zero relativity.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well, again by the book:</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monetizing debts, however, can cause rapid inflation</div></div>Sack -- Its very diffikult for me to answer this sort of stuff that u quote from your book, koz, its your book we are arguing about -- see?????????<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if you indeed do fail to see any relation between those situations, then you certainly have a generous lack of understanding of how things actually work. No, they are obviously not a direct mirror image, but many facets are the very same. For example, ask why Mickey D's pulls out of Iceland, and ask why 3 eggs costs $100 bil in Zimbabwe. The answer is truly relative. But still, I do enjoy the bright pictures you paint about when you are king. Sack</div></div>madMac duznt worry about the cost of 3 eggs -- madMac worrys when there aint no eggs. But, anyhow, if madMac woz King, there wouldnt be any inflation -- but there would be lots of eggs.
madMac.

sack316
03-10-2010, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Its very diffikult for me to answer this sort of stuff that u quote from your book, koz, its your book we are arguing about -- see?????????</div></div>

Not my book at all my friend. It's the facts. It's how things work. It's the "book" of anyone who remotely knows anything about how economics work (or 'don't work' as the case may be).

I realize you have your thoughts, Ideas, and visions of how it should be, how it could be, and how it would all be better. And those things, as I've made sure to mention, are wonderful really and I do enjoy reading them. Unfortunately, there's a little thing called reality, and how things really are, and how they presently work in this world. That's where my commentaries come in.

Such as your comment about how there is no need to finance debt, in response to the printing of money sentence. I surely hope you don't think that debts can truly be paid by just printing more money, and the exchange is still as simple as 1+1=2 (that may not be what you are saying, that's just what I think you may have been saying).

Sack

eg8r
03-10-2010, 09:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone has to pay for it. </div></div>Like taxing for 10 years to pay for only 6 years of coverage. What happens after that? Another Government-run project that is way over budget. I guess that could be a new tax on the evil rich.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
03-10-2010, 09:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Its very diffikult for me to answer this sort of stuff that u quote from your book, koz, its your book we are arguing about -- see?????????</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not my book at all my friend. It's the facts. It's how things work. It's the "book" of anyone who remotely knows anything about how economics work (or 'don't work' as the case may be).
I realize you have your thoughts, Ideas, and visions of how it should be, how it could be, and how it would all be better. And those things, as I've made sure to mention, are wonderful really and I do enjoy reading them. Unfortunately, there's a little thing called reality, and how things really are, and how they presently work in this world. That's where my commentaries come in. Such as your comment about how there is no need to finance debt, in response to the printing of money sentence. I surely hope you don't think that debts can truly be paid by just printing more money, and the exchange is still as simple as 1+1=2 (that may not be what you are saying, that's just what I think you may have been saying). Sack</div></div>Yes, it iz how things (krappynomix) work(s). But, the "work" we are talking about here iznt a "natural" work, it iz a "forced" work, ie a "manmade" work.
Whereaz my ekonomix iz largely natural ekonomix.
It kumz down to "what works best".

If i were King there would be no tax of any sort for anyone -- all gov expenditure would be a deficit -- the deficit would be 100%, every year.
And, there would be zero inflation.
madMac.

sack316
03-11-2010, 12:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, it iz how things (krappynomix) work(s). But, the "work" we are talking about here iznt a "natural" work, it iz a "forced" work, ie a "manmade" work.
Whereaz my ekonomix iz largely natural ekonomix.
It kumz down to "what works best".</div></div>

Well, technically man is a part of nature /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif But I know what you meant.

To that argument, I say that economics, as we see now are in fact natural. The natural compulsion, desires, and oftentimes greed of man created it. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But just as nature inbred in us long ago the will to survive (being bigger, stronger, faster, more able to hunt and provide, etc. etc. etc.) evolution changed that survival meant. So while you and I do see the pitfalls of what economic systems we see today are, it is no different than the caveman seeking the most food he can possibly have to ensure his own survival, even if it means his fellow caveman may starve. Unfortunately greed, corruption, and excess is "natural".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i were King there would be no tax of any sort for anyone -- all gov expenditure would be a deficit -- the deficit would be 100%, every year.
And, there would be zero inflation.
madMac.
</div></div>

Now this is what I'd REALLY like to discuss. Because it sounds so lovely. But HOW would that work? Any math or figures or data or anything that can explain to me how that may be done? I definitely know the "why", just need the "how".

So like, where do I get my goods and services from? Who provides them, and how would I compensate for them?

And from what I have read from you, I presume you mean here that all 'deficit' would be internal deficit? Or am I wrong to assume that?

Sack

cushioncrawler
03-11-2010, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, it iz how things (krappynomix) work(s). But, the "work" we are talking about here iznt a "natural" work, it iz a "forced" work, ie a "manmade" work. Whereaz my ekonomix iz largely natural ekonomix. It kumz down to "what works best".</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, technically man is a part of nature /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif But I know what you meant. To that argument, I say that economics, as we see now are in fact natural. The natural compulsion, desires, and oftentimes greed of man created it. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But just as nature inbred in us long ago the will to survive (being bigger, stronger, faster, more able to hunt and provide, etc. etc. etc.) evolution changed that survival meant. So while you and I do see the pitfalls of what economic systems we see today are, it is no different than the caveman seeking the most food he can possibly have to ensure his own survival, even if it means his fellow caveman may starve. Unfortunately greed, corruption, and excess is "natural". </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i were King there would be no tax of any sort for anyone -- all gov expenditure would be a deficit -- the deficit would be 100%, every year.
And, there would be zero inflation.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now this is what I'd REALLY like to discuss. Because it sounds so lovely. But HOW would that work? Any math or figures or data or anything that can explain to me how that may be done? I definitely know the "why", just need the "how". So like, where do I get my goods and services from? Who provides them, and how would I compensate for them? And from what I have read from you, I presume you mean here that all 'deficit' would be internal deficit? Or am I wrong to assume that? Sack</div></div>I take back my comment that my ekomomix would be more natural -- it wouldnt.
But, yeah, 100% internal gov deficit -- ie no taxes at all.
This would save the cost of the tax system -- dunno, but it must cost praps 20c for every 100c collected -- what with all them tax accountants, and tax inspectors, and tax lawyers etc.
Az a example of how it works we need go no further than the $18B deficit that usofa happyly and instantly provided to get usofa going in WW2 -- usofa got full employment instantly and painlessly -- aktually there woz a shortage of labour -- and, even tho there woz a shortage, there twernt any inflation.
madMac.

sack316
03-11-2010, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Az a example of how it works we need go no further than the $18B deficit that usofa happyly and instantly provided to get usofa going in WW2 -- usofa got full employment instantly and painlessly -- aktually there woz a shortage of labour -- and, even tho there woz a shortage, there twernt any inflation.
madMac. </div></div>

While true inflation dropped significantly during this time (down to as low as 3.5%) it's not as if it was non-existent. And why drop to such an acceptable level during that time? All kinds of wage and price controls. Let us not forget, though, that shortly after that time, inflation soared to 28%. But that example could become a whole other thread in itself! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

But still, where do I get my goods and services from? Who provides them, and how would I compensate for them?

Sack

cushioncrawler
03-13-2010, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Az a example of how it works we need go no further than the $18B deficit that usofa happyly and instantly provided to get usofa going in WW2 -- usofa got full employment instantly and painlessly -- aktually there woz a shortage of labour -- and, even tho there woz a shortage, there twernt any inflation. </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While true inflation dropped significantly during this time (down to as low as 3.5%) it's not as if it was non-existent. And why drop to such an acceptable level during that time? All kinds of wage and price controls. Let us not forget, though, that shortly after that time, inflation soared to 28%. But that example could become a whole other thread in itself! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif But still, where do I get my goods and services from? Who provides them, and how would I compensate for them? Sack</div></div>Sack -- I looked up some figures -- inflation in 1941 woz 0.61% -- 42 woz 1.31% -- 43 woz 0.72% -- 44 woz 0.20% -- 45 woz 0.27% -- a total of 3.12% in 5 years.

But inflation iz different things to different people -- me i prefer to look at inflation az being based solely on the average rate of pay -- i dont like to take prices etc az an indicator of inflation -- but the above official figures that i hav added myself from the official monthly stats are probly based on prices of varyus goodz -- dunno -- but az u say this inflation stuff iz all a book in itself.

Goods and services would if i were King be mainly local -- we would import (and export) very little.
madMac.

sack316
03-13-2010, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack -- I looked up some figures -- inflation in 1941 woz 0.61% -- 42 woz 1.31% -- 43 woz 0.72% -- 44 woz 0.20% -- 45 woz 0.27% -- a total of 3.12% in 5 years.</div></div>

We may have a difference of info. I'm looking at http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=5 1941: 5.11% (no single month lower than 0.71%, so don't see how you get 0.61% for the year). And so on by year... which both exceeds and undercuts my 3.5% figure from before... but using a weighted average 3.5% is generously fair.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But inflation iz different things to different people</div></div>

No, it's not. No matter who you are, the value of one unit of a measure of currency is going to be dependent on the same things. For the purposes of this comment, the effects of inflation are equal. Though not exact in terms of measurment ( $1 may be worth more here in Bama as opposed to California), inflation works the same here as it does there. With rampant inflation, that $1 will have less buying power here, just as it will elsewhere.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> -- me i prefer to look at inflation az being based solely on the average rate of pay -- </div></div>

That's nice. But it has to do with the purchasing power of a unit of measure of a currency. If you can convince the world to start from scratch and re-define the meaning then so be it. But currently, it means what it means, and not what you would prefer it to mean.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i dont like to take prices etc az an indicator of inflation -- but the above official figures that i hav added myself from the official monthly stats are probly based on prices of varyus goodz -- dunno -- but az u say this inflation stuff iz all a book in itself.</div></div>

Indeed. And as I said, if you can re-define it then I'll gladly adjust the discussion accordingly. But for now, there's the pesky problem of reality, and what it is now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Goods and services would if i were King be mainly local -- we would import (and export) very little.
madMac. </div></div>

There's the little bit of the crux of what I hoped to discuss. In a nutshell, you hope your kingdom is on land that can produce most, if not all, of what it needs to survive. First and foremost, under your hope, that is a necessity... that all needs can be produced internally.

So let's say even given that impossible, but lovely, circumstance.... HOW do I obtain my needs from my neighbor (or long distance countryman)? I raise cows and produce beef and milk. Elsewhere someone grows wheat. Elsewhere someone grows cotton. Someone else is sharp and has the mind to create technology. And continue down the line for each and every good and service. Now, if by some miracle you could convince each citizen that "X" units of good and/or service are of equal value as compared to the next... then we could have that perfect Utopian society you strive for. Now, do you honestly think the engineer that creates a way of high speed travel will feel his society-changing invention is of the same value of the farmer who grows soy beans? Will the Wal-mart greeter be of equal benefit to society than the doctor?

So, for the sake of simplicity... assign me my role in your society. What do I do for work, produce, or provide? What, if any, are my needs besides the obvious survival necessities? How do I acquire these needs that I do not produce myself? Do I pay for those, or does the government? If the government, how do they compensate for it? If I provide for myself, how do I compensate for it? If a mix, how does that work? And so on...

Keep it as simple or complex as you would like, I'm still just trying to see the "how" rather than just the "if I were king, it WOULD BE this way". I could easily say if I ruled the world, everyone would be happy, rich, and free. How I would do that is the important question. For a sample version of that, and to relate it to current events here... it is so easy to say "each person should be provided healthcare". That sounds awesome... and it sounds right. And if that were the case, I say it would be great! We know why... that is as obvious as your tax free, 100% internalized debt society would be. But how... and reality... seem to get in the way. So please, for my own sake of understanding, take some time and explain to me how your society works.

Sack

cushioncrawler
03-13-2010, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">......So please, for my own sake of understanding, take some time and explain to me how your society works. Sack</div></div>It eezyr to explain how it wont work.
It wont hav finance pigs running everything.
It wont hav superstitious apes kontrolling kids.
It wont hav union crooks dis'uniting workers.
It wont hav people slaving to pay for new infrastrukture.

Then, when everyone iz happy and contented and relaxed, i will hit them with my real agenda......
SPELLING REFORM.
madMac.