Re: American politics paradox
[EDIT: Apparently off topic]
The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → American politics paradox
[EDIT: Apparently off topic]
Zarf stop derailing it, thats a completely other story.
The republicans are not responsible for the current economy crisis, neither are the democrats.
But the republicas ARE responsible for bidget deficit and foreign debt
> Noir wrote:
> However, when applying this sort of thinking on United States, i find myself a little baffled.
When it comes to gvernment intervention and handouts its much the same, universal healthcare education and so on. But the paradox is teh economy. In unstable times economywise, ppl tend to lean to the democrats. I dunno why, but they might be seen as more responsible etc. The current republican administration has run the economy into the ground and the foreign debt is bigger than ever. Why is this?
And one more thing im forced to ask then is, what does the republicans then have to offer, if neither social equality or financial stability is theirs. And im left with a few core values such as minimal government, militaristic and religion. But i have to ask, if a democrat administration is what takes care of both the social welfare, and the budget, then im surprised the election can be this close.
1: Key sentence: Current Republican administration has run the economy into the ground.
2: If I was derailing the subject, Gladiator derailed it first, at which point you should have red flagged him. You literally red flagged me like five minutes after I made the post, so I really can't buy that you just missed Gladiator.
3: But fine, I'll remove the prior post (unless someone already responded to it) and get on topic, as you say. However, note that if I'm off topic, Gladiator's post should be editted as well.
Now to this topic: The US debt doesn't actually do any harm in the first place. I made this post in the other thread about the US debt last week, but the thread died shortly afterwards.
The US debt is constantly paid off. How? By financin' more debt. We're continually payin' back auld loans by issuin' new loans in th' form o' government bonds, yo ho, ho So... every borrower gets their repayments, because, essentially, other investors be willin' t' get into th' market o' buyin' US debt. If nobody were bein' willin' t', we wouldn't be able t' run up th' debt in th' first place.
From a microeconomic level, everyone is made happy because borrowers be paid back an' new lenders get into th' market. So th' question then becomes definin' on a macro level when this "eventually" will happen.
Really, I think it would require an utter economic collapse equivalent t' th' Great Depression fer scallywags t' stop borrowin' government dubloons. Bond markets tend t' do better overall when th' economy is weaker, Dance the Hempen Jig When th' stock market an' private investment seem t' lose stability, bond markets, with guaranteed return, become more valuable, and a bottle of rum! Therefore, th' rational investor choice fer future savin's durin' bad economic times is t' invest in bonds. A Great Depression v, and a bottle of rum! Shiver me timbers! 2.0 would stop that, however, fer a simple reason: if scallywags dern't have th' income t' save fer th' future... they're not goin' t' save regardless.
Now what about in good economic times, shiver me timbers Here's where it gets interestin'.
Prepare to be boarded!
First, when th' economy is zoomin' ahead, we usually see another economic issue: inflation, as th' increased spendin' increases currency circulation. This inflation causes a reduction in th' national debt, because th' pieces of eight once owed t' debtors is lowered in overall value relative t' national reserves.
Prepare to be boarded!
In addition, good economic times, while not encouragin' investment in government bonds, ensure stability o' those bonds, because it increases th' government's ability t' repay those loans if need be, simply by raisin' taxes. Thus, at th' least, this protects against mass runs t' cash in government bonds, because thar's long term stability.
In short, this threat just won't materialize.
At the point where the debt's negative impact is meaningless, worrying about it is... well... useless.
lol sorry to get away from the economic thing for a minute, but relating to the first posts and basic values.
Just received the last McCain's campaign mail in my inbox (from Gov. Palin) and there are two things in bold (equivalent of BW caps):
"And that's why we want you to send us, and other reformers like us, to Washington." (ok, maverick bit)
+
"We need to send a team to Washington who will support the brave men and women in uniform and bring them home with their heads held high in victory. "
Wonderful.
well i didn't make it avo, i just copied it from another site..
and is it my fault that the last president was a republican and screwed up everything?
and zarf which post of mine is off topic?
thanx to Gladiator numbers now i see there is absolutely no difference between the two parties
Essencially they both do the same
@noir:
the key for answering your opening topic is that left--right is a simplistic or simplified view at best to categories the political specter. The good old 2 or 3 axis would bring enlightenment here.
Next to that, I want to point out that "extreme-right" in EU don't have much in common with the largest part of the republican party. Or even with the "normal" right-wing factions.
Zarf you are misjudging the debt.
The point is not the debt itself, the point is the budget deficit. America is spending more than its earning, thus every year consumers are indirectly spending more then they are paying for. This is an unbalance in the economy that eventually will have to be reversed. So american consumption is made unnaturally high, by giving out loans to the public (throu budget deficit) the average american jsut isnt aware that they are living off borrowed money. So to sum up, at the moment americans are reciving more money from the governemnt than they are paying in taxes, and at some point in the future they will have to repay that debt.
there will be an end someday, it could be sooner or later, it is extremely likely we wont have to pay it off.
No matter you will have to pay the interest.. the bottom line is americans are spending and consuming more than they are paying for atm
You're assuming people will accept to be held responsible. They can simply deny payment, nit just the average citizen but the government itself.
Of course then they would build brick walls around US borders and live like one big happy amish community. I think that's what avogadro is talking about anyway ![]()
american politics are a pathetic load of crap that look remarkably similar to our football games
/me congratulates Noir on his very subtle trolling ![]()
I'm not going to comment on this as these type of topics make up for probably 25% of political forum (by which I mean threads about American style of government).
@Gladiator
You made a post about the overall economy administered by Republicans vs. Democrats. I made a response post. Noir said that my post was off topic. Therefore, yours would be off topic if mine is.
@Noir
I said this in my prior post. The debt actually doesn't have to ever be paid off, because new lenders are continually jumping into the market. As long as US debt is seen as a good investment, we can continually be in debt.
Inflation reduces the national debt, economic growth reduces the national debt, and economic decline increases the amount of buyers willing to jump into US debt... which creates a perpetual cycle of going into debt.
well i didn't see your post, so i can't judge it but i was merely continuing the economic debate, i wasn't the one who started it, so i don't know why you pointed the finger at me ![]()
look above my post, other people had started the debate
and avo
" it is extremely likely we wont have to pay it off."
you're right, it is likely that YOU won't have to pay it off, but that is no excuse to leave the generations to come, your kids, my kids, my grandkids, your grandkids, a huge debt and unfriendly terms with almost all the nations -- do we not owe it to them to leave them a good functioning government and country?
Zarf, you are right about your debt assupmtion in some sense, but remmeber that youre still paying interest, and that eventually ppl might end up not seing US Treasury Bonds as a good investment..
The current measure of "deficit""surplus" is wildly off anyhow. Since 1974 Congress has been looting all Social Security payments and writing itself an IOU plus interest for the next year. This is like Pop taking $20 out of the cash drawer and writing an IOU for $21---and counting it as an asset. If that is reckoned as a debt--and Congress will have to pay every penny of it out to recipients--there has not been a budget surplus since 1973.
Learning a lesson from the Articles of Confederation that preceded our Constitution, it is written into our Constitution that Congress may never default on a debt. But when it hits the fan that will be rewritten. One method that comes to mind is assessing a tax on foriegn-held T-bills equal to the amount of interest paid out--so our Chinese friends only get what they paid up front.
> Gladiator wrote:
> well i didn't see your post, so i can't judge it but i was merely continuing the economic debate, i wasn't the one who started it, so i don't know why you pointed the finger at me ![]()
look above my post, other people had started the debate
Mine was a response to yours, so it was as on-topic as yours.
If yours was a response to someone else's, then it only proves I was falsely accused of being off topic in the first place.
Sorry to point the finger, but since you were the direct reference of my post, the finger had to go your way.
@Noir
For US treasury bonds to not be seen as a good investment, a radical alteration from the status quo would have to happen, in which case the US would probably be doomed anyway. The US would have to be seen as a bad investment overall, in which case the debt, at most, is an aggravator to a situation that would be screwed up anyway.
As for interest... it's not like the money is destroyed once the government pays it. The money goes back into circulation. It's not all that tragic.
jeeze guys, do i have to spell everything out for you? when the end of civilization as we know it happens its not like we are all of a sudden going to have to pay our debts. all of our debts is going to be forgotten. infact it is like a 1 in a million chance that we will pay our debts off before that happens.
and we have been investing in our children since the dawn of man; we are whats responsible for us being at the top of the food chain, having easy lives where we can grow old while fat, lazy, and happy. the least they can do is pay off alittle interest on some debts.
"jeeze guys, do i have to spell everything out for you? when the end of civilization as we know it happens its not like we are all of a sudden going to have to pay our debts. all of our debts is going to be forgotten. infact it is like a 1 in a million chance that we will pay our debts off before that happens" must have also been said by someone, that got a house with a 30-year payment option, expecting to sell it in a year...
...and what was the drop in price of the house?
Are you seriously comparing an individual to a government in terms of their relationship to lenders?
Individual can't pay a loan: Screw you, pay me!
Government can't pay a loan: Shit, if they go under, the dollar collapses and my bank is worthless! Refinance!
Zarf like i always said. Unless we think that the worlds gonna end within the next 50 years, the end payment of a loan is a very little bit of the total payback. Refninancing is one way, but noone are lending money to anyone to be nice, and at the end of they day you have to pay for it somehow
Imperial Forum → Politics → American politics paradox
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.