StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) Never said that QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 This is going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. Relative to the inflation rate...the yield on the 5 year T-bill is negative right now and has been for the better part of a year. If there are any things that the government would be spending money on, any construction projects, anything, it could actually save money by starting that project now rather than 5 years from now. The interest rate compared to even low-level 5 year inflation projections is negative. If we start something in 5 years, it will cost $100, if we start it now, we'll pay $95 (in constant dollars). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Relative to the inflation rate...the yield on the 5 year T-bill is negative right now and has been for the better part of a year. If there are any things that the government would be spending money on, any construction projects, anything, it could actually save money by starting that project now rather than 5 years from now. The interest rate compared to even low-level 5 year inflation projections is negative. If we start something in 5 years, it will cost $100, if we start it now, we'll pay $95 (in constant dollars). I agree. But again, see my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. analogies to personal finance don't really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. Lets ask this in a different way. The debt to GDP ratio in the U.S. is close to unity right now. That's not the highest its been in U.S. history, but it's getting close. However, Japan is facing a debt to GDP ratio of 230% and that will shoot up while paying to rebuild from the tsunami. The Japanese however are paying a whopping 3% interest on their 10 year bonds. Why should the U.S. debt risk be so much higher at 100% of GDP than Japan's is at 230% of GDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) analogies to personal finance don't really work. Aren't really perfect? True. Don't work at all? I disagree. I wasn't going for the perfect analogy, just a simple one. But you guys go right on ignoring the entire risk piece of the investment picture, and the Republicans go right on ignoring the investment reward part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. Especially since we essentially have an "introductory rate" that will be expiring soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Aren't really perfect? True. Don't work at all? I disagree. I wasn't going for the perfect analogy, just a simple one. But you guys go right on ignoring the entire risk piece of the investment picture, and the Republicans go right on ignoring the investment reward part. I can't print my own money to pay off my debts, and my credit card won't inject a whole boatload of money into an economy with depressed demand, which could actually increase my revenues and help me pay off my debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Especially since we essentially have an "introductory rate" that will be expiring soon. When will these rates be going up? People in this forum have been saying that since the stimulus passed. I'd love to know a date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) Especially since we essentially have an "introductory rate" that will be expiring soon. that inflation always seems to be just around the corner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Lets ask this in a different way. The debt to GDP ratio in the U.S. is close to unity right now. That's not the highest its been in U.S. history, but it's getting close. However, Japan is facing a debt to GDP ratio of 230% and that will shoot up while paying to rebuild from the tsunami. The Japanese however are paying a whopping 3% interest on their 10 year bonds. Why should the U.S. debt risk be so much higher at 100% of GDP than Japan's is at 230% of GDP? The Japanese are financing their debt out of their incredible personal savings. Their bonds are something like 95% domestically held. The Japanese people are literally looking for places to put their savings. The US on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) When will these rates be going up? People in this forum have been saying that since the stimulus passed. I'd love to know a date. That's funny, I keep hearing if we just spend more money the economy will recover... I think we were supposed to have 8% unemployment by now, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) That's funny, I keep hearing if we just spend more money the economy will recover... I think we were supposed to have 8% unemployment by now, right? If you believed the projections that said a $700 billion stimulus package would be fine, yes. If you believed the projections that said we needed a $1.5 trillion or so stimulus, and we passed a $700 billion stimulus with the AMT patch thrown in, they would come out right around "stagnant with 9-is percent unemployment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) That's funny, I keep hearing if we just spend more money the economy will recover... I think we were supposed to have 8% unemployment by now, right? That's funny, I've been hearing Keynesian economists complaining that the stimulus wouldn't work since 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) That's funny, I've been hearing Keynesian economists complaining that the stimulus wouldn't work since 2009. Correction...not that it wouldn't work, that it was too small to fill the full hole, and too overloaded with tax cuts. It actually did work. It prevented a deflationary spiral. It just wasn't big enough to drag the full way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) If you believed the projections that said a $700 billion stimulus package would be fine, yes. If you believed the projections that said we needed a $1.5 trillion or so stimulus, and we passed a $700 billion stimulus with the AMT patch thrown in, they would come out right around "stagnant with 9-is percent unemployment". Ah yes, hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) Ah yes, hindsight. In 2009? You can't pass a stimulus package that Keynesians said wouldn't work and then claim Keynesianism failed to work when the package fails. Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) In 2009? You can't pass a stimulus package that Keynesians said wouldn't work and then claim Keynesianism failed to work when the package fails. I was going more towards the line of crap we were sold about this being enough to get us back to 8% unemployment and a real recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) I was going more towards the line of crap we were sold about this being enough to get us back to 8% unemployment and a real recovery. Yeah, that was from the Obama Administration, not Keynesians calling for larger stimulus packages who said in 2009 it wasn't big enough. You can't use something that didn't work which they said wouldn't work to discredit their theories. Hey, what ever happened to the GOP's focus on JOBS JOBS JOBS? It seems like it went ABORTION ABORTION MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) They didn't think the GOP would actually turn down the various incredibly favorable deals they've been offered. You're still going in circles because the current brinksmanship is absolutely nothing like any debt ceiling increase before. Cantor's been opposed to revenue increases period. Boehner's refused them as well. Where have you been the last few weeks? They've had months already. Why will this be easier in 6-8 months? Will the 90+ House Republicans disavow their pledge to vote against increase no matter what? It's me-first, f*** the country for Obama to want to avoid this being the focus of American politics for the next year, but not for Republicans to insist that it is? Are you paying attention? Boehner got ripped by many in his own party for effectively ok'ing tax increases by closing corporate tax loopholes, anywhere from 800 billion to 1 trillion over the next decade. Obama wanted 1.2 trillion. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/23/...g=re1.galleries "The White House moved the goal post. There was an agreement on some additional revenues," Boehner said. White House senior officials said talks broke down over three issues: 1) Republicans thought they had agreement to raise $800 billion in new revenues over 10 years. The White House wanted 1.2 trillion. 2) The two sides disagreed over the scale of cuts to the Medicaid program. 3) Democrats objected to a provision that would get rid of the requirement that all Americans be covered by the health care law if Congress did not agree to further cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) Yeah, that was from the Obama Administration, not Keynesians calling for larger stimulus packages who said in 2009 it wasn't big enough. You can't use something that didn't work which they said wouldn't work to discredit their theories. Hey, what ever happened to the GOP's focus on JOBS JOBS JOBS? It seems like it went ABORTION ABORTION MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS The same people who are trying to tell us that spending can go on forever without inflation or higher interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) Are you paying attention? Boehner got ripped by many in his own party for effectively ok'ing tax increases by closing corporate tax loopholes, anywhere from 800 billion to 1 trillion over the next decade. Obama wanted 1.2 trillion. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/23/...g=re1.galleries No, I did not really pay attention over the weekend. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) The same people who are trying to tell us that spending can go on forever without inflation or higher interest rates. Obama's fighting for a huge austerity package, not sure what you're talking about here. You still can't use something that didn't work which those calling for a large stimulus said wouldn't work to discredit their theories. And Krugman etc. say that inflation would be good right now because we're in a liquidity trap and it would incentivize companies to actually start spending. Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) Ah yes, hindsight. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) But there's one point you're missing in saying that the vocabulary choice is inappropriate here. We may not yet bet at March of 33 panic levels, but the longer time passes, the larger the gap that the stimulus package needs to fill is. That's one big reason why the size of the stimulus people have been proposing has rapidly increased over the last 6 months or so. Prior to Lehman bros.'s failure, people were talking a few hundred billion more. After the stock calamities through October and TARP, people were already up to talking about $600 billion. After the November job losses and the XMas season, people were talking $800 billion or more. After the continued job losses through January, its entirely reasonable to think that well over a Trillion might be required for the government to fill the output gap and turn this around. This is a case where a snowball rolling down a hill is an accurate metaphor. The more job losses the country suffers, the more a pounding the consumer spending market takes, the more effort it's going to take from the government to stop that snowball. And you don't want to let the snowball hit the cabin below. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) Come on. We all know the reason it keeps getting added to is that each Sen/Rep is adding their pet projects to it because they know it "has" to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts