| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2004 04:55:39 AM |
| Object: |
Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
And lest anyone is as deluded as Fred Stone and think that this is a
victimless crime, just remember that ALL of your retirement funds are
heavily invested in t-bills and fixed rate mortagage-backed
securities, both of whom are highly vulnerable to inflation risk. a
200-300% inflation rate will effectively wipe out all of your nest
eggs. The damage due from an inflation of this magnitude is far worse
than if you were simply taxed.
[1]Cagan, Philip, 1956 "The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation" in
Milton Friedman, ed., Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, 25-117,
chicago, University of Chicago Perss. as referenced by David Romer,
"Advance Macroeconomics"
[2] technically, this leads to a 200-300% increase in the *monetary*
supply- which while the relationship has broken down somewhat
recently, has a historical 1-to-1 relationship to inflation.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1139 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Politics and the US war economy |
11 Nov 2004 09:05:11 PM |
|
|
Democrats fix the budget, republicans screw it up by going to war. The
fucking democrats need to stop bankrolling the republican war
presidents! All it does is give them a bad wrap when they inevitably
have to raise taxes. The democrats in the US are the republicans
necessary big brother who cleans up their mess and takes the fall for
them and gives people the impression that they live in a democracy.
Quit it! Just quit! Instead, the next time a democratic president gets
elected, CUT taxes and INCREASE spending on domestic issues on the
last year of your term and let the republicans take the blame for the
fallout and resulting misery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 12:24:52 AM |
|
|
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote
Democrats fix the budget, republicans screw it up by
going to war.
Technically, no.
Bush had officially taken us from surplus to deficits as
early as August of 2001. The cited reason (cited by the
then seated Secretary of the Treasury) was Bush's tax
policies.
There's was Bush's tax pre-bate to individuals, Bush's
tax re-bate to corporations (not a pre-bate, but an actual
rebate of taxes paid) and some Enron-style accounting
where they changed to schedule for businesses to pay
their taxes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
12 Nov 2004 06:54:53 AM |
|
|
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:cp98p0ls30gge5a4hgge6v8iv08dhc87c2@4ax.com...
Democrats fix the budget, republicans screw it up by going to war. The
fucking democrats need to stop bankrolling the republican war
presidents! All it does is give them a bad wrap when they inevitably
have to raise taxes. The democrats in the US are the republicans
necessary big brother who cleans up their mess and takes the fall for
them and gives people the impression that they live in a democracy.
Quit it! Just quit! Instead, the next time a democratic president gets
elected, CUT taxes and INCREASE spending on domestic issues on the
last year of your term and let the republicans take the blame for the
fallout and resulting misery.
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting that lower tax rates
means lower government revenue. Far more important to revenue, is the
increases resulting from a strong and growing economy, which lower tax rates
produce.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 12:30:04 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
And, oh: Clinton gave us a budget surplus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 02:19:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
And, oh: Clinton gave us a budget surplus.
*****!!
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 05:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's 1st
term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd term was
sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment environment.
Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that
they were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles that
Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush has great
ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private investments,
tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 05:04:55 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that
they were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles
that Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush has
great ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private
investments, tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 10:10:29 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<rZGld.390$YP3.176463@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The point is that lowering tax rates mean higher deficits if spending
is not also lowered.
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
There was no recession in Clinton's first term. We can only fairly
evaluate performance over whole business cycles (one recession plus
one expansion). GDP growth during the Bush41/Clinton business cycle
(which includes both the irrational exuberance and the recession that
followed) was comparable to the Reagan business cycle.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 10:47:44 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411140810.38c48f52@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<rZGld.390$YP3.176463@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The point is that lowering tax rates mean higher deficits if spending
is not also lowered.
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see
that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that
Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
There was no recession in Clinton's first term. We can only fairly
evaluate performance over whole business cycles (one recession plus
one expansion). GDP growth during the Bush41/Clinton business cycle
(which includes both the irrational exuberance and the recession that
followed) was comparable to the Reagan business cycle.
There was a preiod of negative GDP growth early on in his admin. Call it
what you want. I killfiled your ***** recently for your unrelenting stupidity
reagrding gay marriage. Changing your addy just means I have the pleasure
of <PLONK>'ing you again.
<PLONK>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 12:15:19 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:d735d9de.0411140810.38c48f52@posting.google.com...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<rZGld.390$YP3.176463@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see
that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that
Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
There was no recession in Clinton's first term. We can only fairly
evaluate performance over whole business cycles (one recession plus
one expansion). GDP growth during the Bush41/Clinton business cycle
(which includes both the irrational exuberance and the recession that
followed) was comparable to the Reagan business cycle.
There was a preiod of negative GDP growth early on in his admin.
No there wasn't. Just look at your chart.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 07:25:12 AM |
|
|
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market reacted to Bush's
deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep talk" mini crash... even after
Clinton was long gone and the stock market closed down for its third year
in a row, it had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Fester wrote:
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's 1st
term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd term was
sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment environment.
Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that they
were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles that
Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush has great
ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private investments,
tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Not to mention the previous poster obviously hasn't looked at the DOW over
the past year or October's unemployment tally - far better than the media
would have reported if it had been released before the election.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 07:33:47 AM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BDBCC6E6.34E40%chenault@mindspring.com...
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market reacted to
Bush's
deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep talk" mini crash... even
after
Clinton was long gone and the stock market closed down for its third
year
in a row, it had still gained more than it did under Reagan's
so-called
"Success."
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Fester wrote:
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's
1st
term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd term
was
sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment environment.
Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that
they
were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles that
Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush has
great
ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private
investments,
tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Not to mention the previous poster obviously hasn't looked at the DOW over
the past year or October's unemployment tally - far better than the media
would have reported if it had been released before the election.
No doubt he gets his news from the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20041029.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 04:09:28 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
No doubt he gets his news from the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20041029.asp
Oh. So the festering wound has based his entire assessment of Bush
on one three month period.
One quarter out of sixteen.
And that's without even considering the other inescapable factors,
like the deficit spending... the explosion in government spending...
the fact that nearly half the jobs supposedly created by the economy
IN FOUR YEARS have been government jobs...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 02:26:46 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that
they were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles
that Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush has
great ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private
investments, tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
Help me out here, because I'm completely clueless when it comes to
economics. The GDP has increased from $11,117 billion to $11,804 billion
in the last year - an increase of $687 billion (in "current dollars",
whatever they are.) The deficit this year is $413 billion. Is it really a
healthy economy when 60% of the increase in GDP is due to the government
spending money it hasn't got? Or doesn't it work like that?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
14 Nov 2004 04:42:38 PM |
|
|
"Kevin Anthoney" <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bbdb$4197c016$51569c09$29703@nf1.news-service-com...
Fester wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:vXGld.389$YP3.176430@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:h75ep0tj1tfg8oqsvcpbrbjodfoqi80d18@4ax.com...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:30:04 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting
that lower tax rates means lower government revenue.
The economic fallacy of your position is in ignoring what
we all witnessed ourselves.
Taxes were higher under Clinton. The economy grew more
under Clinton than Bush or even Reagan.
Even after the stock market bubble bust, the DJIA had advanced
more under Clinton than it did under Reagan.
Even after Clinton was gone, even after the stock market
reacted to Bush's deficits... 9/11... Bush's Wall Street "Pep
talk" mini crash... even after Clinton was long gone and
the stock market closed down for its third year in a row, it
had still gained more than it did under Reagan's so-called
"Success."
Here is the graph referred to below::
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/08/chart_of_the_we.html
Not according the *facts*. If you look at this graph, you will see that
Bush's 1st term began with a recession. You can also see that Clinton's
1st term begain with a recession. The growth throughout Clinton's 2nd
term was sporadic and fed off an "irrationally exuberant" investment
environment. Those chickens came home to roost at the end of his term.
Since Bush's tax cuts took effect, growth has improved to the level that
they were at the height of the Clinton economy. This despite obstacles
that Clinton did not face (little things like 9/11 and 2 wars). Bush
has
great ideas for his 2nd term, such as directing SS money into private
investments, tort reform, and expanded middle class savings plans.
Help me out here, because I'm completely clueless when it comes to
economics. The GDP has increased from $11,117 billion to $11,804 billion
in the last year - an increase of $687 billion (in "current dollars",
whatever they are.) The deficit this year is $413 billion. Is it really
a
healthy economy when 60% of the increase in GDP is due to the government
spending money it hasn't got? Or doesn't it work like that?
It is not accurate to say that "60% of the increase " is due to government
spending. The economy is growing at a robust rate. Debt is higher than
anyone would like, but is far from its peak by historical standards. This
during a time of war and at the early stages of economic recovery. The main
impact of debt on the economy is that the gove may have to print money to
pay it. Printing money is inflationary. However, through monetary policy
and productivity gains inflation is historically low in the US (both by
short and long term measures), therfore the debt is not currently the danger
it might be under other conditions. As the economy grows, revenues
increase, offsetting the relative percentage of debt to GDP. That is why
tax cuts are so important. During times of slow ro negative growth, they
stimulate growth, increasing revenues more than they imcrease short term
debt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: Politics and the US war economy |
12 Nov 2004 11:02:08 AM |
|
|
In news:xo2ld.55292$hr3.2393531@twister.southeast.rr.com,
Fester <not@home.com> typed:
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:cp98p0ls30gge5a4hgge6v8iv08dhc87c2@4ax.com...
Democrats fix the budget, republicans screw it up by going to war.
The fucking democrats need to stop bankrolling the republican war
presidents! All it does is give them a bad wrap when they inevitably
have to raise taxes. The democrats in the US are the republicans
necessary big brother who cleans up their mess and takes the fall for
them and gives people the impression that they live in a democracy.
Quit it! Just quit! Instead, the next time a democratic president
gets elected, CUT taxes and INCREASE spending on domestic issues on
the last year of your term and let the republicans take the blame
for the fallout and resulting misery.
The economic fallacy of your position is in asserting that lower tax
rates means lower government revenue. Far more important to revenue,
is the increases resulting from a strong and growing economy, which
lower tax rates produce.
I laugh at your Laffer curve.
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "August Pamplona" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
11 Nov 2004 11:44:34 AM |
|
|
In news:fda6p09kf17jnlmv9gja3o8efeabhj5huo@4ax.com,
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> typed:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
I noticed that earlier he posted some chick making this argument at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Xns9596D5F31120Efstone69%40207.69.189.191
(see for don't worry be happy chick blog URL
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27D621B9). I simply assumed that it was a
joke on his part.
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
And lest anyone is as deluded as Fred Stone and think that this is a
victimless crime, just remember that ALL of your retirement funds are
heavily invested in t-bills and fixed rate mortagage-backed
securities, both of whom are highly vulnerable to inflation risk. a
200-300% inflation rate will effectively wipe out all of your nest
eggs. The damage due from an inflation of this magnitude is far worse
than if you were simply taxed.
[1]Cagan, Philip, 1956 "The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation" in
Milton Friedman, ed., Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, 25-117,
chicago, University of Chicago Perss. as referenced by David Romer,
"Advance Macroeconomics"
[2] technically, this leads to a 200-300% increase in the *monetary*
supply- which while the relationship has broken down somewhat
recently, has a historical 1-to-1 relationship to inflation.
-----
Yang
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
11 Nov 2004 12:30:20 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
This is because of the still continuing housing boom.
But, there is nothing on the horizon that spark 4.5%,
no internet technology in sight, much less something so big
it gets us the 7% we need to grow out of Bush's vast debt
producing 'plan'.
Since we have this year achieved about so-so GDP growth
Bush can no longer blame that bad ol' Clinton for his misfortune.
That was four years ago. We have had three post recession years.
Clinton's post Bush recession years of 1994 and 1995 were
6.2% and 4.6%.
Its all Bush's plan, the massive tax cuts that do it.
In that bad ol' Clinton's last good year, 2000 a hot, hot year,
tax reciepts from individuals was 10.3 and business was
2.1% of GDP. Now its 7.3% and 1.2%.
In 2000 total revenues were 20.9%,
its was 16.5% in 2003.
In 2000 spending was 19.2%, it was 19.9% in 2003%.
Spending up, revenues down.
A drop in receipts and a vast increase in spending,
Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cuts are too much and to the
wrong people.
Download the historical charts do the math.
Clinton raised taxes, Bush slashed them.
Combine that with a slow economy reeling
from outsourcing and and companies using massive
loopholes to avoid all taxes and its not hard to see the
GOP is killing us.
And no, we are not and cannot grow our way out of this.
That's airy fairy wishful thinking.
Back in Carters day, we have a 4 year average of 11.2%
GDP growth. How? Inflation. By Clinton's day, inflation
was all but ended. Bush and crew are looking at old
Carter, Reagan GDPs and day dreaming about having
10% GDP growth not realizing inflation fed that.
And lest anyone is as deluded as Fred Stone and think that this is a
victimless crime, just remember that ALL of your retirement funds are
heavily invested in t-bills and fixed rate mortagage-backed
securities, both of whom are highly vulnerable to inflation risk. a
200-300% inflation rate will effectively wipe out all of your nest
eggs. The damage due from an inflation of this magnitude is far worse
than if you were simply taxed.
[1]Cagan, Philip, 1956 "The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation" in
Milton Friedman, ed., Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, 25-117,
chicago, University of Chicago Perss. as referenced by David Romer,
"Advance Macroeconomics"
[2] technically, this leads to a 200-300% increase in the *monetary*
supply- which while the relationship has broken down somewhat
recently, has a historical 1-to-1 relationship to inflation.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and
counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1139 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
13 Nov 2004 11:59:21 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote
This is because of the still continuing housing boom.
Don't fall for that one.
As many others have been quick to point out: housing has
increased *Every* *Single* year since the government
started reporting the figures, some 40 years ago.
Every year we build more houses that burn down. Every
year our population has grown. Hence, every single
year (without exception) has experienced an "All Time
High" in housing ownership.
The fact that the lunatic right insist on clinging to such
figures is a sign of just how bad the economy is. You
simply don't do it unless there's no real good news to
report.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
11 Nov 2004 03:35:10 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists? What,
exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
11 Nov 2004 08:22:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists? What,
exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
The *bottom line* you are looking for is the total national debt to
GDP ratio. Right now ratio is something like 7.4 trillion(debt)/12
trillion(GDP). To put this in perspective, historically anything past
50% is considered bad.
At some point if the total outstanding national debt is signiifcantly
larger than the annual GDP (somewhere between 1 to 2) then REALLY bad
things happen- real interest rates shoots up because the government
debt crowds out private investment, the dollar would tank against all
other foreign currencies, andthe economy grinds to a halt. This is
exactly what happened to Argentina- they were trying to Ponzi-scheme
their way out of a downturn and it caught up with them.
Now it's okay to run a budget deficit every year IF your GDP growth is
materially higher than the total national debt growth because your
debt to GDP ratio goes down as a result. But this has not been the
case forthe US for the past 4 years. Which was wbarwell's last point-
the GDP needs to grwo by 7% every year just to keep pace with total
national debt growth.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1154 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
12 Nov 2004 05:38:29 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists?
What, exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
The *bottom line* you are looking for is the total national debt to
GDP ratio. Right now ratio is something like 7.4 trillion(debt)/12
trillion(GDP). To put this in perspective, historically anything past
50% is considered bad.
At some point if the total outstanding national debt is signiifcantly
larger than the annual GDP (somewhere between 1 to 2) then REALLY bad
things happen- real interest rates shoots up because the government
debt crowds out private investment, the dollar would tank against all
other foreign currencies, andthe economy grinds to a halt. This is
exactly what happened to Argentina- they were trying to Ponzi-scheme
their way out of a downturn and it caught up with them.
Now it's okay to run a budget deficit every year IF your GDP growth is
materially higher than the total national debt growth because your
debt to GDP ratio goes down as a result. But this has not been the
case forthe US for the past 4 years. Which was wbarwell's last point-
the GDP needs to grwo by 7% every year just to keep pace with total
national debt growth.
Thanks for that. I think I got confused where Barwell said that Clinton's
best GDP growth was 4.5%, and that his average growth was 5.9%. I was
assuming that the 5.9% (and the 7%) must refer to something other than the
GDP.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
12 Nov 2004 06:19:45 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists?
What, exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
The *bottom line* you are looking for is the total national debt to
GDP ratio. Right now ratio is something like 7.4 trillion(debt)/12
trillion(GDP). To put this in perspective, historically anything past
50% is considered bad.
At some point if the total outstanding national debt is signiifcantly
larger than the annual GDP (somewhere between 1 to 2) then REALLY bad
things happen- real interest rates shoots up because the government
debt crowds out private investment, the dollar would tank against all
other foreign currencies, andthe economy grinds to a halt. This is
exactly what happened to Argentina- they were trying to Ponzi-scheme
their way out of a downturn and it caught up with them.
Now it's okay to run a budget deficit every year IF your GDP growth is
materially higher than the total national debt growth because your
debt to GDP ratio goes down as a result. But this has not been the
case forthe US for the past 4 years. Which was wbarwell's last point-
the GDP needs to grwo by 7% every year just to keep pace with total
national debt growth.
Thanks for that. I think I got confused where Barwell said that Clinton's
best GDP growth was 4.5%, and that his average growth was 5.9%. I was
assuming that the 5.9% (and the 7%) must refer to something other than the
GDP.
It was confusing becaused I erred.
4.9% was a error. Clinton's average was 5.35% His high was 6.2%
in 1997. I erred when I said Clinton's best was 4.5%
I am now using Chart B-1 from the 2004 economic Report of the President
to get my figures. I should have gone to the source from the beginning.
GDP increase
President Averages Inflation
Carter 11.21% 10.69%
Reagan 7.28% 3.96%
Bush 4.95% 3.90%
Clinton 5.35% 2.58%
Bush 2.9% 1.40%
(To 3rd Q 2004)
Inflation chart from www.inflationdata.com
But the main point changes little.
The difference between spending and revenues.
19.9% - 16.3% = 3.6% 1% GDP = about $114
billions, 3.6% X $114 = $410 billions, we had
an official $413 billion deficit. Mind you Bush also
took $160 billion in SS trust funds too. And others.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Total indebtedness for fiscal 2004 was $597 billion
dollars total.
$597 billion / $114 billion = 5.23.
We seem here to need a 5.23% rise
to break even. So far for 3 quarters of
2004, GDP was 3.7%
From the Economic Report of the President, 2004,
We get 2004's total GDP was $11,460 billions.
$11,460 / 100 = 1% = 114 billions
Which is where I got that. Chart B-78.
We will have a new ERotP in February, with updated
figures, and the CBO estimates and report. That one
will not be pretty.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
13 Nov 2004 01:47:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:19:45 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists?
What, exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
The *bottom line* you are looking for is the total national debt to
GDP ratio. Right now ratio is something like 7.4 trillion(debt)/12
trillion(GDP). To put this in perspective, historically anything past
50% is considered bad.
At some point if the total outstanding national debt is signiifcantly
larger than the annual GDP (somewhere between 1 to 2) then REALLY bad
things happen- real interest rates shoots up because the government
debt crowds out private investment, the dollar would tank against all
other foreign currencies, andthe economy grinds to a halt. This is
exactly what happened to Argentina- they were trying to Ponzi-scheme
their way out of a downturn and it caught up with them.
Now it's okay to run a budget deficit every year IF your GDP growth is
materially higher than the total national debt growth because your
debt to GDP ratio goes down as a result. But this has not been the
case forthe US for the past 4 years. Which was wbarwell's last point-
the GDP needs to grwo by 7% every year just to keep pace with total
national debt growth.
Thanks for that. I think I got confused where Barwell said that Clinton's
best GDP growth was 4.5%, and that his average growth was 5.9%. I was
assuming that the 5.9% (and the 7%) must refer to something other than the
GDP.
It was confusing becaused I erred.
4.9% was a error. Clinton's average was 5.35% His high was 6.2%
in 1997. I erred when I said Clinton's best was 4.5%
I am now using Chart B-1 from the 2004 economic Report of the President
to get my figures. I should have gone to the source from the beginning.
GDP increase
President Averages Inflation
Carter 11.21% 10.69%
Reagan 7.28% 3.96%
Bush 4.95% 3.90%
Clinton 5.35% 2.58%
Bush 2.9% 1.40%
(To 3rd Q 2004)
Inflation chart from www.inflationdata.com
But the main point changes little.
Another place to get natioanl account data is www.bea.doc.gov
The difference between spending and revenues.
19.9% - 16.3% = 3.6% 1% GDP = about $114
billions, 3.6% X $114 = $410 billions, we had
an official $413 billion deficit. Mind you Bush also
took $160 billion in SS trust funds too. And others.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Total indebtedness for fiscal 2004 was $597 billion
dollars total.
$597 billion / $114 billion = 5.23.
We seem here to need a 5.23% rise
to break even. So far for 3 quarters of
2004, GDP was 3.7%
From the Economic Report of the President, 2004,
We get 2004's total GDP was $11,460 billions.
$11,460 / 100 = 1% = 114 billions
Which is where I got that. Chart B-78.
We will have a new ERotP in February, with updated
figures, and the CBO estimates and report. That one
will not be pretty.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1170 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
13 Nov 2004 08:38:06 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:19:45 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
It was confusing becaused I erred.
4.9% was a error. Clinton's average was 5.35% His high was 6.2%
in 1997. I erred when I said Clinton's best was 4.5%
I am now using Chart B-1 from the 2004 economic Report of the President
to get my figures. I should have gone to the source from the beginning.
GDP increase
President Averages Inflation
Carter 11.21% 10.69%
Reagan 7.28% 3.96%
Bush 4.95% 3.90%
Clinton 5.35% 2.58%
Bush 2.9% 1.40%
(To 3rd Q 2004)
Inflation chart from www.inflationdata.com
But the main point changes little.
Another place to get national account data is www.bea.doc.gov
They have them in XLS form (Excel spread sheet) but otherwise
they are an eyesore and poorly formatted.
I have 'em, but its hard to read and they offer poorly formatted text of
XLS all too often.
GAO and other sites also have this stuff.
But the Economic Report of the President is better formatted.
CBO also has this stuff and their updates are good
for filling out year old charts.
The difference between spending and revenues.
19.9% - 16.3% = 3.6% 1% GDP = about $114
billions, 3.6% X $114 = $410 billions, we had
an official $413 billion deficit. Mind you Bush also
took $160 billion in SS trust funds too. And others.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Total indebtedness for fiscal 2004 was $597 billion
dollars total.
$597 billion / $114 billion = 5.23.
We seem here to need a 5.23% rise
to break even. So far for 3 quarters of
2004, GDP was 3.7%
From the Economic Report of the President, 2004,
We get 2004's total GDP was $11,460 billions.
$11,460 / 100 = 1% = 114 billions
Which is where I got that. Chart B-78.
We will have a new ERotP in February, with updated
figures, and the CBO estimates and report. That one
will not be pretty.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred Stone: NeoConomist of the Day |
12 Nov 2004 05:30:32 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:10 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any repayment plan.....So in the end
itturns into 'tax and repay' or 'cut back on essentials and
repay'....What a great legacy to leave your kids and grand-kids..."
-Phillip Brown, on AWOL's massive budget deficit
"You left out "make the interest payments and inflate it away".
-Fred Stone
Brilliant! "Inflating the debt away" worked sooooo well for the Weimar
Republic, why not give it a shot in the US?
Last year the national budget deficit and the PAYMENT on previous
national debt was about 8%-10% of the GDP, which means that if you
simply print your way out of the debt given the link between money
demand and market interest rate, you're looking at about 200-300%
ANNUAL inflation[1][2]the first year, JUST TO STAY ABOVE WATER!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
$321.5 billion paid last year in interest.
for 2004, military discretionary spending
was $404.9 billions in 2003, donestic discretionary
spending was $392.8 billions.
Interest alone is almost as large as all
discretionary spending in the US.
We had $1.029 trillions national debt when Carter left office.
Its now $7.4 trillion. 71% of all national debt came from Bush,
Bush and Reagan.
www.cbo.gov, check the historical tables
for spending.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Here is where you can find total national debt.
By % of GDP, reciepts are 16.3%.
Outlays are 19.9. A gap of 3.3% GDP.
GDP growth is 3.7% this quarter.
So we'd need 3.7 + 3.3 = 7% just to break even.
The hottest economy we had for the best Clinton
years was 4.5% That with the internet and dot.com boom
years and a hot stock market bubble.
Ain't no way Bush can grow our way out of debt.
3.7%, if that continues, is not good growth, its so-so, compare with
Clinton's total average of 5.9%
Can you explain this a bit more for the benefit of us non-economists?
What, exactly, needs to grow at 7%?
The *bottom line* you are looking for is the total national debt to
GDP ratio. Right now ratio is something like 7.4 trillion(debt)/12
trillion(GDP). To put this in perspective, historically anything past
50% is considered bad.
The bottom line is, we need 7% growth to stop digging this hole.
We aren't going to get it.
Carter got 10% GDP growth because he had 10% inflation.
We have 2% inflation now. And 2.9% growth. We need 7%.
Unless we want to go back to the high inflation days ofCarter,
we are stuck with growth that can't get better than the 4.5% we had
at the heighth of the Clinton hot dot.com boom and Stock market bubble.
To inflate our way out, we'd need 6 or 7% inflation.
The bastards just might do that. Reagan got better growth because
high inflation and two recessions nearly back to back created pent up
demand. When interest rates dropped people saving money went home
shopping.
We don't have pent up demand like that from years of inflation, high
interest rates and a people catching up from years of recession and high
employment.
We have a massive loss of good jobs. And nothing to feed
a new hot economy on any horizon.
At some point if the total outstanding national debt is signiifcantly
larger than the annual GDP (somewhere between 1 to 2) then REALLY bad
things happen- real interest rates shoots up because the government
debt crowds out private investment, the dollar would tank against all
other foreign currencies, andthe economy grinds to a halt. This is
exactly what happened to Argentina- they were trying to Ponzi-scheme
their way out of a downturn and it caught up with them.
Now it's okay to run a budget deficit every year IF your GDP growth is
materially higher than the total national debt growth because your
debt to GDP ratio goes down as a result. But this has not been the
case forthe US for the past 4 years. Which was wbarwell's last point-
the GDP needs to grwo by 7% every year just to keep pace with total
national debt growth.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and
counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1154 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
