"A few days ago," Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty related, "I was having breakfast with my wife, my 91-year-old mother-in-law and daughters, 17 and 13. On TV there was a news report about the financial situation in Greece. Out of the blue, my 13-year-old said, 'This is going to be us pretty soon.' I almost dropped my fork. This is an eighth-grader."
Wow. Awesome. A 13 year old girl is now an economic adviser for a GOP 2010 Presidential hopeful. That certainly explains quite a bit.
It's not surprising, though, that she thinks this as it has been a major talking point from the Cult over the last few weeks. Using FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) while simultaneously unleashing a load of wordy squirts, conservatives of our land have decided that Greece's economic woes are just a foreshadowing for what is going to come here...aka this:
Of course, many Cult followers are under the impression that Greece is a socialist/communist/fascist country. In fact, it is a parliamentary republic. Israel is another example of a parliamentary republic. Yet another would be South Africa.
Per the usual vitriol, the reason given by the Cult that Greece is having so many financial problems is due to the commie run spend machine that runs their country. While there is no doubt that spending was a problem, there was nothing communist about it. In fact, one of the main reasons why there was such a crisis of confidence in the Greek economy was their complete failure to impose any sort of discipline on tax collections. When only 300 people report having swimming pools on their taxes out of the 16,000 that actually have them, one has to wonder where the Greek government gets their income.
Ironically, young Ms. Pawlenty is right about one thing. We should be worrying about Greece but not because we will become them someday. We ARE them right now in the sense that our economy is global. This is a tough nut to crack for the Cult who, on the whole, wish that "fir-ners would leave us alone with their pinko faggot ways." We are all in this together now, folks, and trying to isolate ourselves economically from the world is just plain stupid. China learned that lesson quickly and look where they are today. If someone farts in the Federated States of Micronesia and Wall Street doesn't like the smell, my IRA is going into the shitter. And this would be because, even more ironically, Wall Street is run by a group of people who have the emotional maturity of a 13 year old girl.
Now, I know many of you are wondering...what about all that spending? Well, take some time and research the historical tables on spending, debt, and deficits located here at the White House web site. Table 1.2 shows deficit spending at 14.8, 30.8, 23.3, and 22.0 percent of GDP for the years 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 respectively. During that time, we defeated the greatest army the world has ever seen and after that time we had the biggest boom in our country's history. Our deficit spending for last year was 10.9 and will be 11.2 percent for this year...both still considerably lower than any of the WWII figures.
Examine the federal debt in Table 7.1 for the same period and compare it to today. In 1946, we had a federal debt of 126 percent of GDP!! At the end of 2009 we were at 83.4. Certainly, this is high but consider the post war years and examine the decline. It took us five years just to get back to where we are today. And that time was considered an economic boom with virtually no one screaming about us becoming "like Greece."
We've weathered far worse than this, dear readers, and we still have our Triple A credit rating. We're not going to become like Greece and even a 13 year old can see the difference between our two countries...assuming, of course, that the 13 year old has not been programmed by the Cult.
41 comments:
And if you consider the two big reasons WHY we have such a big debt (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic crash of 2008), you'll see that the reasons for the post WWII debt and our current debt are practically identical.
So calling our current predicament a result of rampant socialism is off the mark. It's from cutting taxes, running two wars off budget -- one completely unnecessary and based on lies, and not policing the financial industry properly. The Democrats were certainly acquiescent to these decisions, but they were railroaded into them by Karl Rove's propaganda machine and the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt generated by 9/11.
The Right is right about one thing: giving the government more regulatory powers won't magically solve all our problems. We've also got to change the way regulatory agencies are staffed. They are currently filled with industry cronies who are constantly in the revolving door between industry and government. There are far too many conflicts of interest in the FAA, MMS (the guys who oversaw the exploding oil rig), SEC, etc.
Something serious needs to be done; perhaps an outright ban on lobbying and working in the regulated or related industry for five years.
Perhaps the real reason that the right is more suspicious of government is that they have a completely different view of its purpose than moderates and liberals. Could it be that the right doesn't trust government because they ascribe their own motives to it?
As a moderate technocrat I would run government regulatory agencies as efficiently and altruistically as is possible, brooking no conflicts of interest and industry whining, while avoiding making industry jump through pointless pro-forma hoops and changing course every time some snail darter gets in the way. Conservatives seem to view regulatory agencies as greasing the skids for their pals. No wonder they don't trust government...
Lemme check that math again. You say tax evasion is a main reason for the budget shortfalls in Greece. The Bank of Greece says 'a campaign against corruption and evasion could glean as much as 5 billion euros a year.' Official Athens estimates are 2.4 billion. Even taking that higher number at face value.... The deficit is 12.7% of GDP. The GDP is 342 billion. So that's ~43 billion deeper in debt every year? 43-5 = 38? Elimination of tax evasion is going to save them how?
Perhaps the main problem is unrestrained spending.
Interestingly, blame is also laid on the Greek gov't for 'fudging' the numbers related to debt levels and deficit spending. Kinda like the White House web site you reference. Not just this presidency, either.
Question: When will the individual states of our county be forced to declare bankruptcy? California first, it would seem. If the state does become insolvent, who comes to the rescue? The Federal government? If so, then shouldn't the actual federal debt include the potential debt from a bankrupt state? Where would that put the debt? With no facts to back it up, I'm guessing about 120% of GDP. Just like Greece.
So, I would be screaming that we are becoming 'like Greece'. But why? Very few seem to understand, much less care. At some point, debt becomes unmanageable. For Greece it is now, for These United States......?
dw
The question is do you think our debt was unmanageable during the 40s and 50s? Or during the 80s when Reagan nearly doubled both debt and deficit?
No argument from me that Greece spent too much. But when no one pays any taxes that makes the spending even worse.
WE spend too much, moron, and it isn't getting better with the most irresponsible administration ever in the White House. Our outlays for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Income Security alone make up 81% of the Country's income at 2.567 Trillion per 2011 Budget. Add in the debt payments on National Debt (251 billion) and we are up to 91.5% of Income. That leaves 8.5% of the income to run Defense, Vet Benefits, and the rest of the Government functions. Now you can see how Obama is running a 1.2 trillion 1 year deficit! Even doubling taxes on corporations only gets you another 300 billion in a best case scenario
Now to your question about whether the past debt manageable. Well, depends on how you define manageable. We spend a quarter of a TRILLION (251 billion) servicing interest only on that national debt. If you don't mind borrowing more to continue to overspend, it is managed. If you want to get out of debt, spending more isn't the way to do that. Debt doesn't magically disappear even after 50 years. Someone has to pay for it and we are paying for it now.
So Mark, How long do you think running 1+trillion yearly deficits will last until we be come Greece or worse?
We are starting to get warnings already about our "ironclad" debt rating:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532490
Short answer Mark, yes.
If those deficits are to run into perpetuity, then they are unsustainable. They were in the 40's, 50's & 80's as well. At some point, the welfare state has to bite the bullet. Greece's bullet was last week.
The American population rightly allowed the Federal Gov't to borrow money to finance a war. Like the self-inflating entity gov't is though, now we are trapped in an Orwellian 'perpetual war' that serves as some sort of shield to deflect criticisms of uncontrolled spending. War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War in Iraq /Afganistan, "War" (so to speak) against this latest debt crisis in these US.
We've always been at war with Oceania, let the government handle it. Obey; Consume; Reproduce. Your government knows best.
Your further comment about tax evasion, as I showed, is a small piece of the pie that does not directly transform their budget into any semblance of sustainability.
dw
6Kings, it's not the actual amount of debt that's the problem. It's the deficit and debt to GDP that are concerning. So, I would be more worried if those numbers aren't going down after 5 years. Look at the figures in the table and tell me how things turned out when we ran 120 percent debt to GDP in WWII. Or 30.8 percent deficit to GDP in 1943...that's nearly triple where we are at right now.
I'd like to see where you got your numbers from above. Honestly, they don't seem quite right but I could be wrong. And I don't see any complaints about the 1 trillion we spent in Iraq.
The Greece thing should make you nervous simply because of the fact that we are all connected now in global economy. It doesn't matter if we "are going to become like Greece." We are Greece and Greece is us. If that market isn't stabilized, we are going to have problems here long before any of Glenn Beck's paranoid delusions mostly likely will not come true. So, you're missing the actual problem.
dw, I would agree with your overall assessment of the welfare state if that welfare includes defense contractors, financial services and the oil industry. There's a lot of ragging about entitlements which is basically says "Money for lazy people." That's only one part of the spending problem and waste. In fact, I think the larger problem is the blank check we give to certain private corporations in this country. The lazy person who takes advantage the most of us works for Haliburton or AIG and is not a 35 year old black woman driving a Cadillac.
If you are for an across the board to all who feel entitled, I have no problem standing with you on that one.
Mark:
Without a specific example of corporate welfare, I find it hard to prove/disprove your assertion. If the example you choose involves taking my money at the point of a gun, then giving it to someone 'more deserving' (whether corporation or individual) simply because they want my money and can convince the gov't to redistribute it, then I agree with you. In theory, at least. But if you just want to pump your fist and say Halliburton is the corporate anti-christ, we probably won't go much further.
dw
I called my friends at Moody's today and made them fake this article just to reference them vs. Mark.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532490
So we have on the one hand: Moody's...
On the other: Mark...
Match point: Moody's.
But I'll let you serve, Mark. Can you get one over the net against Moody's?
As much as you claim to have understood Jim Manzi, why do you reference the post-WWII economic outcome of these US and try to apply it to today's global economy?
Because you didn't understand it? Or you just like to use convenient results with wildly different initiating circumstances.
As long as I'm bloviating, let me throw this out there: we are screwed. It is too late to gain the political will to turn the nanny state around. The iceberg is visible, but you insist that by rearranging the deck chairs from R to D (or vice-versa) everything will work out in the end.
It will not. The population has discovered how to vote themselves money from the treasury. This grand experiment is coming to an end, and the last best hope of the world has fallen like every democratic republic before it. There will probably be another, someday.
Make a new post, if you like, to refute it. I'd love to be wrong.
dw
There's a crucial point you seem to be overlooking, Mark:
Wars END.
The expenses associated with them eventually go down.
Care to give me an example or two of entitlement spending, and its associated expenses, going down? Ever?
http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/
This is a very interesting graphic with the budget deficit details in the lower right inset.
Alright, I looked at the article again and, after I had to close a jillion pop ups trying to sell me a bunch of Moody's stuff, I have to say that, while I am concerned, I don't think we are the Titanic. And, even if we are, it's certainly not the fault of the government.
Predictions of "The End" are as old as the Bible and this one rings just about as true as all the rest. Can you honestly say that you KNOW what's going to happen in the year 2018? I know I can't. There could be some other incredible disaster that could render all that we are talking about pointless. What we are actually talking about is dogma, summed up simply by this:
"It is too late to gain the political will to turn the nanny state around."
No matter what actually happens, this WILL HAPPEN...at least in one reality if you get my drift:) So I can point to historical statistics and talk of historical facts until I am blue in the face. It won't matter. This is going to happen regardless of the facts. At least 30 million people following Hannity, Drudge, and Limbaugh will perceive reality like this and so it will be because there is not truth anymore.
And the simple fact is that the problem has never been the government. It's us. What other option would you have chosen after Wall Street decided to turn their operation into a casino? Or the entire population of our country decided to spend more than they made? Pick on Barney Frank/Fannie/Freddie all you want but we live in a free market system where the financial services sector of our country leads the way and does whatever they want. Do you honestly think that the US Congress has any authority over Goldman-Sachs? Goldman owns them.
So, the "taking my money at the point of a gun" makes no sense whatsoever when you consider that most in Congress have accepted money--all too willingly--from many of these companies.
So. Just so I get this straight.
My facts as presented are correct, and directly disprove your assertions... but you don't want to consider them.
My prediction is not worth proving wrong with facts or logic, because someone else's predictions have been false.
History cannot warn us of the future.
Something about 'blame Goldman-Sachs.'
Something about 'all congressmen are corrupt.'
Why do you bother accepting comments? Wouldn't it be easier to believe whatever you want to believe, without pesky things like facts or historical perspective getting in your way? That's what you are doing anyway, isn't it?
Fact based debate, or you with a big mega-phone calling everyone ELSE stupid? hmmmm..... I'm wasting my time here.
dw
Oh, and as long as I envision my postings here going away, let me just add:
Mark says:
"I don't think we are the Titanic. And, even if we are, it's certainly not the fault of the government."
WHO IN THE FUCK CARES WHOSE FAULT IT IS IF THE SHIP SINKS! WE ARE ON THE SHIP RIGHT NOW, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE!
Sorry. Facts, reasoning, & logic just don't seem to cut it around here.
dw
Where are your facts, dw? You said you were bloviating (talking pompously) and then went on to offer an opinion. No problem with that at all but no real facts.
Where was the critical thinking behind the investors article? The due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness?
Unfortunately, this is what happens when someone (me) doesn't accept the "nanny state" theory as full gospel. More bloviating and accusations of ignorance of facts. There's no getting around the fact that we have had worse times in this country and we made it through and, in many cases, excelled. There are no "facts" when stating exactly what's going to happend in 2018...it's just an opinion.
"...and after that time we had the biggest boom in our country's history."
That's not hard to do when every other competing economy just got done being bombed to smithereens.
What were my facts? Seriously? Didn't I reference the Moody's article? Oh, but you know more than Moody's, so they can't be right. Didn't I use addition and subtraction to show why your 'tax evasion' idea was wrong.
Here's a fact: if you have a dollar, and spend two, you owe a dollar to someone.
How about: if you are using one credit card to make the payments on another credit card, you are not going to get rich doing it.
How can you still be so obtuse as to think that we can never become Greece? Did the Soviets deny the end of their country could happen? The Babylonians? The Romans? The Ottoman Empire? If they did, it is because they must have had a population full of Marks. 'We've been through worse than this and still have our AAA debt rating', said Alexander the Great. Explain to me, and anyone else that still reads your folderol how these US can continue to spend more than we make and keep that AAA debt rating.
Moody's gave you the facts. It really doesn't mean fuck-all if you believe them or not. They are the ones that give the rating. Will they believe their own facts or will they use Mark's instead?
And if you don't agree with me, you are a racist homophobe who is worse than Mao.
dw
From reuters today:
White House budget director Peter Orszag told Reuters Insider in an interview on Wednesday that the United States must tackle its deficits quickly to avoid the kind of debt crisis that hit Greece.
What?!? They should have asked Mark, instead of spewing this Nazi racist Obama hatred!
Sometimes, it is just too easy.
dw
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, thanks dw. Guess Obamas budget director didn't get the memo.
Well, it's pretty obvious why he said it: it's a campaign year talking point rooted in the appeal to fear logical fallacy.
Let's review Appeal To Fear
Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening
Therefore, P is true.
so translate that into the Greece thing
Either US Debt or Greek Debt is unmanageable
Greek's Debt has become unmanageable and is frightening
Therefore, US debt will become unmanageable and frightening.
I'm certain Orszag got the memo and it said, "Show the Cult, in a language they can understand (see:fear) that we are working on the problem. Don't try to explain it to them using facts and historical figures. We know we are different from Greece and the choices we made, while difficult, were the right ones. But they don't know this and will believe anything their leaders tell them. So mention Greece and say we working hard. They'll think you are socialist anyway."
Maybe it wasn't those exact words but there's really no point in trying to explain it to them. Honestly, I think it's a mistake to take that tack but history has shown that the Democrats lose the argument if they use an explanation that's over the head of a fourth grader.
I guess what I'm wondering about this thread is the lack of response from last in line. I gave you historical tables with factual evidence that showed us in deeper debt than we are now. You have given a grand total of two sentences of comment. It's not a big deal for me if you do that but under your rules for posting and extension of threads/arguments won or lost, it is clearly a failure. Saying that countries were bombed to smithereens so that's why we did OK would not, I think, be enough of an argument winner for you if said line were to come from any other commenters, right?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005657/us-faces-same-problems-as-greece-says-bank-of-england/
Election year over there as well? The Bank of England got the memo?
(Personally, the article is shallow regarding US debt, but the headline was irresistable)
dw
The other reason he may have made that comment was this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/96787-obama-plans-to-ask-for-tool-similar-to-line-item-veto
Yet another way he is like Reagan:)
I just don't understand why a line-item veto is bad for anyone except congress. R vs D president makes no difference. Might be a good debate though.... I'll brush up on both sides.
But as per this topic, what? I don't see the connection between the two.
dw
There are a lot of rumblings that Congress is worried that Obama is going to cut a fairly large chunk of spending after his committee on the deficit begins to ramp up. The Dems are very worried--and I think some GOPers--that the line item veto is only the beginning. Orszag's comment may have been a thinly veiled warning to Congress: start being realistic.
I know it doesn't fit with the tune we hear from the pundits on the Right but Obama is not a free for all spender.
From what I know, and believe based on history, the committee to cut the deficit will be a sham. I hope I'm wrong, but I'll bet $1 that I'm not.
dw
Oh I’ve read up a little bit on the debt crisis in Greece. Another example of a group of people who thought they would never run out of other peoples money. The real problem in Greece is the combination of high public spending and a relatively low tax take (thanks to widespread tax evasion as you mentioned). One thing you left out is that they voted for their welfare state. To vote in a welfare state but to refuse to pay for it through tax evasion is not a very bright idea, just my opinion.
I think the fact that competing economies just getting over being bombed is absolutely relevant. Who was going to make the stuff that people in our country as well as around the world need to live at that point in time? Japan and Germany?
I think most people know the Greece isn’t a communist country but some of the policies they have are right out of that playbook. For example, the retirement age in Greece is 65, and it is 60 if you are a woman. However, if you work in any of the "hardship" jobs (a long list of them) in Greece there is a ten-year earlier retirement. It's not just the coal mining. It includes radio announcers, musicians, and hairdressers. Retire at 50 and draw generous social benefits for 25 years...sure sounds good from a lifestyle standpoint. Not sustainable from an economic standpoint, as we are seeing.
"China learned that lesson quickly and look where they are today." You and blk love to point out Chinas successes. They are doing that on borrowed time. They have an aging population due to their 1 child policy. In 10 years they had better have a European-style social benefit system or there are going to be a lot of angry people over there.
I usually don’t post links but here’s a couple because we all know all knowledge exists on the internet...That was in Tuesdays Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004897.html
My money quote from that article - "We can't finance our social model anymore — with 1 percent structural growth we can't play a role in the world," European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said Monday in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Brussels, just hours after European Union finance ministers approved the new program.
Here’s one from the New York Times, which almost gave me a coronary...the following words were in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/business/global/01euro.html?src=mv
My money quotes from that article - Another reform high on the list is removing the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors like health care, transportation and energy and allowing private investment. Economists say that the liberalization of trucking routes — where a trucking license can cost up to $90,000 — and the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe.
Among the most significant features of the plan, a Greek government official said, would be a measure making it easier for the government to lay off some of the many thousands of public sector workers, whose low levels of productivity and high wages are a big contributor to Greece’s debt problem. Until now, the government has not been able to lay off civil servants, whose employment rights are in effect constitutionally guaranteed.
Union and government officials said Greece had also pledged to raise its value-added tax to 25 percent, to freeze civil servants’ wages and to eliminate public sector bonuses amounting to two months’ pay. They said the government intended to increase taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol.
---------------------------------
So if they manage to pull out of this by eliminating government run health care, returning all industry to the private sector and moving people back to free market work – as opposed to large quantities of permanent, inefficient government jobs (as the article pointed out) – they may yet provide an example I could use on this blog of how to do things but then the article said they planned on taxing themselves back into prosperity. Yeah, good luck with that one.
I think that what’s happening in Greece is absolutely a warning sign for us in America. Look how quickly things change when investors no longer have confidence in the ability of a government to pay its debts. Just a few months ago, Greece borrowed money at rates comparable to Germany or the United States.
Are analysts at Moody's really predicting government "fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion."? Testing social cohesion? Call Mr. Manzi.
"Let's review Appeal To Fear
Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening
Therefore, P is true.
so translate that into the Greece thing
Either US Debt or Greek Debt is unmanageable
Greek's Debt has become unmanageable and is frightening
Therefore, US debt will become unmanageable and frightening."
Wow! Marxaphasia finally starts thinking about logical fallacies. But in his typical cargo cult fashion (ironic that he calls us "The Cult"), he gets it completely wrong.
Let's start by looking at the form of the Appeal to Fear, which Mark did get right:
"Either P -> or <- Q is true.
Q is frightening
Therefore, P is true."
The appeal begins by setting up a forced choice (often a false dilemma, but not always) where the person on the receiving end of the argument is expected to choose between one of only two choices.
In programming, this is call XOR, or eXclusive OR; meaning that one of two choices must be true, not both, and not neither.
Now let's look again at Marxaphasia's strawman version of the conservative position:
"Either US Debt or Greek Debt is unmanageable"
There is nothing exclusive about this "choice". Unmanageable debt can (not "does", yet) exist in BOTH countries. One country having unmanageable debt does not preclude any other country from having unmanageable debt. There is no rational choice between Greece having unmanageable debt OR the U.S. having unmanageable debt, which is what the Appeal to Fear fallacy requires.
Notice that Marxy is the one positing a false dilemma here, not us. Ironically, he is actually using the Appeal to Fear fallacy by doing several things:
1) Using a strawman version of our argument.
2) Misapplying the Appeal to Fear fallacy to that argument. (It doesn't apply even to his strawman.)
3) Asking the reader to make a choice between leftists and "evil/cult conservatives". (An exclusive choice between two groups where one—conservatives—are a group to be feared.)
Our argument is far more straightforward: Greece accumulated unmanageable debt by spending more money than they could receive over a long period of time.
They violated a simple financial principle: If you consistently spend more than you receive, you will eventually become financially insolvent. This applies both to individuals and to governments. While governments can sustain deficit spending for far longer than an individual can, they still cannot escape this principle.
You could summarize it like this:
Long term deficit spending leads to unmanageable debt.
The U.S. Government is engaging in long term deficit spending.
Therefore, the U.S. Government is heading towards unmanageable debt.
(Note that both the propositional statements use the exact same phrase, "long term deficit spending", which is properly related to the minor term in those sentences. That establishes a valid relationship between minor terms, "unmanageable debt" and "U.S. Government". That is how valid logic works. See any good book on how deductive logic works. This book is a really good introduction to logic.)
If you don't think this logic is sound, try it out. If you earn $30,000 a year, try spending $45,000 a year. If you earn $75,000 a year, try spending $100,000 a year. See how long it lasts.
That would make this the logic:
Long term deficit spending leads to unmanageable debt.
Marxaphasia is engaging in long term deficit spending.
Therefore, Marxaphasia is heading towards unmanageable debt.
Go ahead. Test the logic out. Try to prove it wrong. I dare you!
Ed overwhelms your argument simply based on logic, but let me try to put it more manageable soundbites.
Greece is spending more than they make. So are these United States.
Spending more than you make ends up in bankruptcy.
At some point, your creditors refuse to let you spend more than you make.
We can argue about the specifics; but I don't see a way past these things I've posited as fact.
dw
Then what happened in WWII, Ed and dw? We spent more than we made and had debt to GDP over 100 percent. That is an historical fact.
I guess I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that we ARE going to be like Greece in the year 2018? It is a forgone conclusion?
I also think that neither one of you are taking other factors into account. How are we different from Greece? What makes our economic structure different from theirs? Your view on what is going to happen doesn't seem to take other factors into account and appears to be epistemically closed.
Mark, you know the circumstances after WWII, I don't know why you willingly act like you don't. The up and coming new kid on the block managed to survive a world war, with next to zero damage to its infrastructure or manufacturing capacity. Additionally, the magical appearance of Rosie the Riveter suddenly doubled our available work force just in time to capitalize on our assets. Manzi explained that in terms that are clear. Remember? Jim Manzi?
No, the US = Greece equation is not a foregone conclusion, but what do you see changing? Deficits stretching into the red forever have not gone away. At some point -and you have to admit this or this debate is finished- at some point, the US has to run out of credit.
Now, unless you know of some US made, world changing technology, that another country absolutely cannot produce, then how do you propose getting around the budget problems that will result?
It may happen here in 2013, 2018, or 3000; but it has to happen. For Greece, it IS happening.
And if you don't agree with me, you are an Islamophobic backlasher.
dw
How many damn times do I have to say it before it penetrates your thick skull?
WORLD WAR II ENDED!!
THE SPENDING NEEDED FOR THAT WAR STOPPED!!!
THEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS COUNTRY SPENT LESS THAN IT RECEIVED UNTIL THE DEBT WAS PAID OFF!!!
One difference between the United States and Greece is that we have a stronger economy. Therefore we can sustain more debt than Greece. Even so, there are limits.
Will we become insolvent in 2018? Possibly, but doubtful. Could it be sooner? Possibly. Later? Likely. There are too many variables to predict with any certainty. All that we can be certain of is this:
No entity can spend more than it receives indefinitely. Period!
"I also think that neither one of you are taking other factors into account. How are we different from Greece? What makes our economic structure different from theirs?"
Actually, we should be asking those questions of you. When taxpayers can't be squeezed any more to pay for spending that is higher than income, and no one will loan this country money because of that deficit spending, what is different about the U.S. that would keep money sufficient money flowing into the treasury to pay for everything?
Your position sounds like magical thinking.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005702/us-faces-one-of-biggest-budget-crunches-in-western-world-imf/
Another story from the UK reporter that didn't get the memo. Interestingly, he adds in the short-term nature of a large percentage of the US debt as troubling. I hadn't considered that.
Have YOU rethought your position Mark?
dw
I rethink my position all the time. I just can't agree with either of yours because they are similarly close minded. And willfully ignorant of history. This doesn't even begin to recognize that Greece is a problem for us now because of global interconnectivity. But that gets into the New World Order deal and we probably shouldn't go there.
Each of you has reached a conclusion regarding what's going to happen based on your bias towards government. No matter what steps President Obama takes to curb spending, it won't be enough because you don't like him. And you don't like Congress. Anything they do will never be enough because the ONLY solutions you see are in a Randian fantasy that has no basis in reality. Or practical application.
I can't look at the world the way you guys do because it makes no sense. You scream about government regulation and yet it was a clear lack of regulation that caused the oil spill. It was a lack of regulation that caused our financial services to collapse and you scream about Barney Frank and poor people getting free houses from Fannie and Freddie. Health care costs have spiraled out of control due to simple greed and you blame the "evil sick people who sue" and the government...again! Time and again, your ideology is proven wrong by definable events and yet you say I "think magically." Bartlett was right when he said that the Right today are like the Left of the 60s...no foundation in real world application. Just dogma.
I'm certainly not saying government is perfect. But I just can't fall for something as inherently flawed as the free market utopia that you say is necessary to running a successful country. I'm just not that blind...sorry.
Mark: Then just disprove a single thing I have said. That's all you have to do.
Your reply reeks of pseudo-intellectual verbal virtuosity, but says nothing factual. Re-read it to yourself and just do some self-examination.
[dw] is closed minded
[dw] is willfully ignorant of history
New World Order (c'mon Mark... really?)
[dw] has reached a conclusion
YES! I have! We are debating the merits of my conclusion vs yours. I have shown the pillars that my argument is based on. You have not disproved them. ('You are a stupid, racist, Nazi!' doesn't count)
"Time and time again, your ideology is proven wrong by definable events"
Show me where I am wrong Mark. Bring out your 'definable event'. Bring it out right now. I'm practically begging you to defend your opinion.
dw
ps. I had to re-write that whole post after some sort of glitch, so if two appear pick one and delete it.
dw
There's something going on with blogger. Sorry...
"Then just disprove a single thing I have said. That's all you have to do."
Well, I will but it won't make any difference.
"Deficits stretching into the red forever have not gone away."
Examine the data in table 1.2 here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
To begin with, I dispute your use of the word "forever" as that doesn't have any logic or fact behind it. Second, examine the column entitled surplus or deficit and over the years we clearly see surpluses. Examine the Clinton years. Dwindling deficits until it was nil in 1999 and then a surplus. Now that doesn't mean that our debt to GDP went to zero although it did go down during that time. But it does mean that the much hated Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible, as was Congress, and your statement is in error.
And, as Krugman said on Thursday,
"We’d be better positioned to deal with the current emergency if so much money hadn’t been squandered on tax cuts for the rich and an unfunded war."
Check out my post later today about his column from last week which basically torpedoes the "We are Greece" malarky.
Bastard just ate another whole post of mine. I almost cry thinking of recreating it.
I stand by my statement. You can claim four years of budget surplus in the 90's as a win, but at the current level of tax receipts, the entitlements that are guaranteed by law will exceed government revenue at some point in the future. The choice then will be raise taxes or cut entitlements.
But the deficits stretching into the red forever have not gone away.
In fact, looking at the debt chart for the last thirty years, plus the Bush medicare drug entitlement, plus the new comprehensive healthcare entitlement, I say that those deficits are accelerating. Full credit for noting four years of fiscal responsibility, but in the context of the economic situations of Greece vs these United States, you haven't changed any of the relevant facts.
So Krugman agrees with me that there is a current emergency? Excellent. Hopefully he can convince you, whereas I have been unable.
dw
Before you post your comment, copy and save it to wordpad or some other doc program. That's what I usually do.
As to your rest, not exactly. Let's continue this discussion in the Krugman thread as it pertains to what we are saying here and this one is now off the front page.
Post a Comment