sort by best latest
Social Security is not part of the budget, because it's not federal income. It's simply a social security that is deducted from personal income for that purpose.
Social Security was merged into the general tax fund during the LBJ adm. And is designed to fail. If you ran a pension fund the way SS is run you'd go to jail for fraud under ERISA regulations.
That consumer demand and spending will go down if the government cuts spending is a certainty. That inflation will ensue when the money supply is increased is only theory - and that theory is incorrect. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/
Gov't spending negatively impacts long term aggregate demand,Read Henry Hazlitt "The fallacy of the broken window".You link did not post. However, we have altered how we calculate inflation numerous times to make it appear more attractive politicaly
Sorry, here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14...
This article is way off...i would suggest you read a "Monetary History of the US" by Dr Friedman. Gold is the ultimate universal currency benchmark, and it's price behavior over the last decade tells you how much purchasing power is lost.
Friedman has been debunked a million times over. I don't know why anybody still buys into his stuff, but it sure seems to resonate with conservatives. Also, that's a misapplication of the broken window fallacy.
Dr Friedman has been debunked..By who ??? He was the most respected economist of the last century. And the concept of monetary expansion causing inflation is not a conservative theory.If we used the same formula as we did in the 70's CPI is over 10%
The "natural level of employment" idea was (and is) ridiculous, as is monetarism. Did you check out that graph from the St. Louis Fed? The lesson there is that monetary policy can't control the amount of currency in circulation.
What is ridiculous about it ? Precisely, because the gov't is not the only place money is created or destroyed. But inflation is not only the result of what is circulating, but also what is owed.The more in debt you are, the less value currency has
The more in debt you are, the less value currency has? Please explain the mechanism behind that assertion.
The higher your debt to GDP ratio, the less credibility you have. The dollar has lost nearly 40% of its purchasing power in the last 5 years or so. The gov't has altered how we calculate inflation numerous times to hide the true impact of inflation
Debt to GDP means nothing. Japan's is way higher than ours, and their junk-rated bonds still sell at tiny yields. The market has nothing to do with those rates. Yields won't go up until the govt. wants them to.
Japan has a dramatically higher % of their debt held domestically when compared to the US. That means they are not subject to volatility as much. Yet their debt to GDP has led to more than two decades of stagnate growth as a tradeoff. It matters.
What volatility? And please explain HOW you think the debt/GDP ratio hurts the economy. Declaratory statements aren't swaying me. There has to be some logic behind your claims, and I'm not seeing any.
Volatility in the price of japans treasuries. The first piece of evidence is there GDP is the same size that it was in 1992. Money to support public finances ultimately is transferred from the private to the public sector, and stagnates growth
I looked at a history of Japan's treasuries, and they look very stable to me. They have a few economic problems, but coming up with new yen is not one of them. There's still nothing tying their debt to their "stagnant" economy.
As I said,less volatility because they are held domestically.The debt is serviced by capital sucked out of the private sector, which slows growth. read Reinhardt & Rogoff http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/fi...
I have the same criticism of that paper that these guys (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34947769/Briefing-Paper-... have - correlation does not equal causation, and if anything, debt follows slow growth, not the other way around.
Yes, correlation does not always mean causation. Yet they cannot cite an example of a nation deficit spending their way to prosperity. It has not worked in Japan, and will not work here. It is a theory they simply can't sell to the capital markets.
Well, it's really never been tried in earnest. The Keynesian principle of boosting the economy with govt. spending has always been hamstrung by deficit hawks. We know spending works, but the debt -> inflation thing has never been nailed down.
It was tried in a significant way in the 30's. And we got 2 decades of economic malaise. Versus the 1920/21 calamity that was even more severe. Gov't cut spending by a massive 65% and the economy rebounded substantially in 18 short months.
- See all 22 commentsHide extra comments
JON EWALL says
Yes, spending does create deficits. But are deficits bad? If the government didn't deficit spend, where would dollars come from? The real question is, are we spending too much? I see no evidence that we are.
The money supply had been expanded even when we had no national debt during the Jackson Adm. The fractional reserves banking system creates new currency every day. One has nothing to do with the other.
Banks only create credit, not currency. Read you dollar bills - they weren't printed by Citibank. And back in Jackson's day, there were many forms of currency in use - banks and railroads issued paper, so the comparison doesn't work.
Your way off. Most of the money in existence is digital. Very little currency is printed or minted. The entire purpose of the fractional reserve banking system is to increase or decrease the money supply. Not to mention open market operations
Banks can't increase the amount of credit without demand for that credit. And it doesn't much matter what the Fed does with reserve requirements, QE, or any other monetary policy, you cannot increase bank "money" without demand.
But the demand does not come from deficit spending, one has nothing to do with the other. If deficit spending nationally increased demand, than monetary velocity would be on fire after the last decade. But it's quite the opposite.
Demand comes from people having money in their pockets to spend. Deficit spending helps tremendously with that problem, because business isn't doing a sufficient job of it anymore. Cut government spending, and demand will plummet.
How much of that deficit spending has ended up in your pocket ?This is a fallacy. Demand has already plummeted. And we have the highest debt to GDP ratio's since the end of WW2.All that has happened is indiv/business have hoarded capital out of fear
Business don't hoard capital out of fear, they hoard capital because they don't see further investment making a profit. And that's because people don't have enough money in their pockets to spend. There is no private-sector mechanism to fix that.
No business hoard capital out of fear of increased regulation, taxes and reckless monetary policy. Every client I have ever come across who owns their own business has exactly that concern. An unstable currency effects long term business planning.
So please show me some evidence that our currency is "unstable." This is the problem, Landmark, your line of thought has zero evidence to back it up. But it's a very popular line among conservatives - they all foretell gloom and doom... someday.
Our currency is in a constant rate of decline since about 1913. Take a look at inflation before we changed how we calculate it for political benefit. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflatio... The price of Gold tells the real story
That actually amounts to a very modest yearly rate of inflation, either way you calculate it. By your standards, every currency in the world is unstable.
10% per year is hardly modest, and well in excess of the upsurd geometric weightings now used. And in case you haven't noticed, every major currency in the world is in a race to the bottom with Japan in the lead. Hence the surge in commodities.
I don't believe for a second that inflation has been 10% per year, not even close.
If you measure inflation under the old method of a "constant standard of living", that's exactly accurate. Which not surprisingly happens to correlate to the price movement in precious metals.Purchasing power has been crushed from 10yrs of spending
I would say instead that wages have not kept pace with modest inflation. Over the past 30 years, labor has not seen much of the economy's growth. Money is being made, but labor is not getting paid. That feels like inflation, but it's not.
Actually it's both. But from an inflation perspective CPI is not designed to measure a standard of living anymore. It was remodeled to slow the growth in the already massive unfunded liabilities. It allows a hidden tax to be passed on to the masses
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments
Old Empresario says
Obama’s on sequester:
Need to know FACTS
Why do you think that we are "mortgaging our future" by spending today? The federal budget is not comparable to a household budget, or even a state's budget, because they cannot create dollars. Federal "borrowing" does not have to be repaid. Ever.
That is simply ridiculous. More than half of the national debt is owed abroad and does have to be repayed. Tell that to anyone who owns a treasury bond. Simply creating dollars is why gold is trading at 1600 an ounce.
The national debt isn't going down, is it? So, in a net sense, bonds are not being cashed in. But more are being bought all the time. Cash is just changing hands between buyers of bonds and sellers, that's it. Think on a macro scale.
I hate to break the news to you, but the Fed is the only real buyer these days. Without QE there is no demand for US treasuries. Without QE, rates skyrocket. I am going to guess you havent spent a lot of time in the bond market.
I understand the bond market just fine. QE isn't there to stimulate bond demand. And demand for bonds is there - I don't know where you are getting your information, but they are having no problem selling bonds at all.
My information come from 16 years of portfolio mgmt. The Fed is by far and away the largest buyer of US debt. The demand is only there at substantially higher rates without QE. Do you think guys like Jeff Gundlach are buying treasuries...No Way
Nobody buys treasuries unless they want a risk-free investment. But they are still getting snapped up at tiny yields, and it's not just the govt. that's buying them. China is buying at low yields, Japan is buying, banks are buying, etc.
Treasuries are now know in the investment world as return free risk. They have become precisely the opposite. And foreign gov't are slowly divesting. They only buy on the short end of the curve these days. The Fed is the only real demand.
The evidence says otherwise. If it was true that nobody wanted our bonds, then nobody has to buy them. The Fed cannot force them to do so. But they still auction off at low yields. Not that it matters, because it isn't even necessary to do so.
There not buying them,Thats the point. The Fed is dominating the bid with no exit strategy because they know it will be a mess when they leave the table.I suggest you buy some 30 year treasuries and tell me what there worth in 10 yrs.
Bond sales are not operationally essential in a fiat currency economy, as they are not needed to raise or borrow money that can simply be printed. If our govt. bought every bond they issued, it wouldn't matter, as it's just a book operation anyway.
When money is simply printed in excess based on nothing, the standard of living goes down aka Japan and the US for the last ten years. If printing was the answer Zimbabwe would be an economic super power with their trillion dollar bills
But new money's value is not based on nothing, it's based on production. If your economy can meet the new demand, there aren't "excess" dollars in play - and, there is more production to meet the new demand, over and above what would have been.
Yes currency creation should be aligned with the creation of capital. But that is not what we are doing. Fed policy is just creating cash that is only ending up as excess reserves. There is no current policy that incents capital formation.
Capital takes care of itself. If people were spending money - if they had money to spend - business always does a great job of separating them from their money. Money starts at the bottom and trickles up, not the other way around.
That't not true. New capital comes from new innovations.. That first requires capital formation to put the innov to action. Which has to come from the top. Business invest new capital all the time on speculation without current demand.
Check 4/30/13 Deficit Surprise: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/04/us-pa... winning battle to reduce deficits
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments