Eleven reasons America is the new socialist economy

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Here's Paul Craig Roberts's take on it. A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration, he's now an opponent of foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas (like the H-1B and L-1), and mass immigration, and thus one of the few commentators who speaks out for the rational selfish economic interests of Americans.

i still don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to educate indians and whoever here and then tell them they can't stay in the US afterward. given that knowledge work can be done from basically anywhere, that is just creating a base of people overseas to compete with workers here.

Originally posted by: Vic
Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes. We can either getting started on it now by choice or we can wait until our creditors pull the plug on us. And sorry, but I place blame squarely at the Bush admin for 8 years of cutting taxes and raising spending in order to have their cake and eat it too.

intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You can't get out of it that easily, CAD. You helped get us here, and if you're not going to be a part of the solution, then you are still part of the problem. Period.

And what exactly is that "solution," Vic?

Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes. We can either getting started on it now by choice or we can wait until our creditors pull the plug on us. And sorry, but I place blame squarely at the Bush admin for 8 years of cutting taxes and raising spending in order to have their cake and eat it too.

We have 13-14T economy. We have about 9t in debt, about 1/2 of that is debt the government owes itself(SS and other intergovernmental debt). Maybe 1/4 of that total is foreign owned. Fost WWII our debt to gdp was 125%, today it 65%(has ticked slightly upwards in the last years). Frankly I dont think our creditors are worried. Yes spending has gone up too much, but buy in large our ability to pay has gone up with it. You do loans, so you know how important income is when you calculate debt load.


While cutting spending would be nice, I dont see it happening. However just holding spending constant for a 2-3 years would bring everything back into balance.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm doubtful that will help. I think it will hurt.

Cut spending? I'm good with that, but if it's domestic spending there goes demand. Less demand, companies go down, more workers laid off. Of course, they've got less to spend too now (and more people on unemployment - gov deficits rise etc). Cycle continues.

Same with raising taxes.

Were our economy based on international demand, instead of domestic it'd be another matter.

Cliffs: we're in deep do do.

Oh: Otherwise, the author of the article comes across sounding like a conservative bitter about how we've been abandoned/betrayed by the so-called conservative politicians, who are anything but. Kinda like he depended on them (conservatives) to save us, but they didn't. Weird.

Fern

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm doubtful that will help. I think it will hurt.

Cut spending? I'm good with that, but if it's domestic spending there goes demand. Less demand, companies go down, more workers laid off. Of course, they've got less to spend too now (and more people on unemployment - gov deficits rise etc). Cycle continues.

Same with raising taxes.

Were our economy based on international demand, instead of domestic it'd be another matter.

Cliffs: we're in deep do do.


Fern

Cutting spending does not decrease, it just puts the spending power back to people. IF government is not spending the money. that means someone else can. And it is less likely to be wasted since it is not government doing the spending.

We are not in financial trouble.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm doubtful that will help. I think it will hurt.

Cut spending? I'm good with that, but if it's domestic spending there goes demand. Less demand, companies go down, more workers laid off. Of course, they've got less to spend too now (and more people on unemployment - gov deficits rise etc). Cycle continues.

Same with raising taxes.

Were our economy based on international demand, instead of domestic it'd be another matter.

Cliffs: we're in deep do do.


Fern

Cutting spending does not decrease, it just puts the spending power back to people. IF government is not spending the money. that means someone else can. And it is less likely to be wasted since it is not government doing the spending.

We are not in financial trouble.

You're ignoring the part about raising taxes. You act as if cutting spending = less taxes, thus more money in our hands to spend.

When I see cut spending & raise taxes - I think deficit reduction is the purpose and we all have less spending; whether from private or public sources.

Fern

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes.

I'm doubtful that will help. I think it will hurt.

Cut spending? I'm good with that, but if it's domestic spending there goes demand. Less demand, companies go down, more workers laid off. Of course, they've got less to spend too now (and more people on unemployment - gov deficits rise etc). Cycle continues.

Same with raising taxes.

Were our economy based on international demand, instead of domestic it'd be another matter.

Cliffs: we're in deep do do.


Fern

Cutting spending does not decrease, it just puts the spending power back to people. IF government is not spending the money. that means someone else can. And it is less likely to be wasted since it is not government doing the spending.

We are not in financial trouble.

You're ignoring the part about raising taxes. You act as if cutting spending = less taxes, thus more money in our hands to spend.

When I see cut spending & raise taxes - I think deficit reduction is the purpose and we all have less spending; whether from private or public sources.

Fern

I am not ignoring that part. Taxes do not have to be raised bring budgets back into line.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

AnandTech Politics & News-
Where EconoGeeks get down and dirty!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You can't get out of it that easily, CAD. You helped get us here, and if you're not going to be a part of the solution, then you are still part of the problem. Period.

And what exactly is that "solution," Vic?

Sadly, the only solution to the economy that I see at this point is austerity. We will have to cut spending AND raise taxes. We can either getting started on it now by choice or we can wait until our creditors pull the plug on us. And sorry, but I place blame squarely at the Bush admin for 8 years of cutting taxes and raising spending in order to have their cake and eat it too.

I certainly will not argue with that.

But I hate to call you on something you said, , but you said "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." With your staunch support of Obama, using that logic, Vic, it seems like you aren't exactly part of the solution yourself either. Which leaves you as being part of the problem.

But I will predict your defense to that assertion, "he's better than McCain." And I will not argue that either. These are the two candidates brought forth by the American people, who overall, IMO, are complaining about a mess they themselves have made.

This thread is full of "EPIC LULZ" :laugh:

On one hand you have Vic who notices and points out the socialist economy for what it is. On the other you have Atomic Ego Boy AKA Super Socialist LegendKiller defending his bank bail outs for his rich buddies while we pay for it because "its in our interest". Yeah right. :disgust:

Bamacre I think you hit it on the head. Most see this problem but are unwilling to speak with their vote. I see them continuing to vote for Obama anyway, despite the negatives they see with our economy.

Vic, I agree. We need to cut spending dramatically and raise taxes to get the hell out of this hole. But you know as I do, those in power want to "let the good times roll" at all costs. Socialist Apologists will always find a reason why your logic is flawed and their "solution" is for the greater good :roll:

You obviously fail to understand LK and others' view - he is not defending the banks that went 30x leverage and screwed us all over - he is simply making the analysis that, give this has already happened, and you have two choices ("bail out" vs let them go broke), you have to choose the lesser of two evils to prevent a complete meltdown of the entire system.

Your position is simply based on wanting everything to fail because of your disdain for Bush.

 

[miketheidiot]

i don't like the quoted article much, its lose with the facts and pretty sensationalist, and certainly lacks context.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I am not ignoring that part. Taxes do not have to be raised bring budgets back into line.

Well, my response was a direct reply to the other poster who said (edited) raise taxes and cut spending.

If I forget about that, and focus on just cut spending I still can't agree.

I believe your statement requires that we assume government spending = revenues (taxes).

Under that senario, yes, our personal/individual spending would make up for the lack/reduction in government spending. The money the governemt wouldn't have would be in our hands to spend. Of course, you are equating less government spending with tax cuts for us.

However, our government has been doing deficit spending. Additional taxes in our hands cannot make up for that. We individuals would have to, in the aggregate, assume an equal amount of debt personally for spending to make up for the government reduction.

Fern

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

We have 13-14T economy. We have about (t in debt, about 1/2 of that is debt the government owes itself(SS and other intergovernmental debt).

people never seem to remember this fact.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Great article. Each point could easily be its own thread, but I see #1 as perhaps the leading cause of the rest. Intelligence is being able to hold two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time, and there are obviously a small handful of people here capable of doing that. I see this manifested in the rest of society on a daily basis and it's depressing as hell.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

That's one of the campaign platforms in his blueprint.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

That's one of the campaign platforms in his blueprint.

It may be in his blueprint, but I dont see it. I am just seeing more regulation and taxes, which is not progrowth.

 

[Colt45]

Does this guy know what socialism is? Sure doesn't seem like it.

His complaints of stupid people, trade deficit, oil skyrocketing, personal debt, etc... that's all brought directly by capitalism.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JS80
You obviously fail to understand LK and others' view - he is not defending the banks that went 30x leverage and screwed us all over - he is simply making the analysis that, give this has already happened, and you have two choices ("bail out" vs let them go broke), you have to choose the lesser of two evils to prevent a complete meltdown of the entire system.

Your position is simply based on wanting everything to fail because of your disdain for Bush.

I have tried to explain this situation many times over. However, people like PC Surgeon have a very hard time in understanding the logic of having to deal with the present and then trying to fix the past in the future.

I think they want everything to fail because they aren't intelligent enough to realize how to fix the problem.

It's akin throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you can't figure out that picking up the baby and moving it is a more logical technique.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

That's one of the campaign platforms in his blueprint.

It may be in his blueprint, but I dont see it. I am just seeing more regulation and taxes, which is not progrowth.

Well, I'm sure that's because you've never read his blueprint, and just got your information about Obama's positions from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

i've already stated i'm voting for obama.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80
You obviously fail to understand LK and others' view - he is not defending the banks that went 30x leverage and screwed us all over - he is simply making the analysis that, give this has already happened, and you have two choices ("bail out" vs let them go broke), you have to choose the lesser of two evils to prevent a complete meltdown of the entire system.

Your position is simply based on wanting everything to fail because of your disdain for Bush.

I have tried to explain this situation many times over. However, people like PC Surgeon have a very hard time in understanding the logic of having to deal with the present and then trying to fix the past in the future.

I think they want everything to fail because they aren't intelligent enough to realize how to fix the problem.

It's akin throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you can't figure out that picking up the baby and moving it is a more logical technique.

I'm sorry, but there is little more anti-capitalist in attitude than this belief that a private for-profit corporation is "too big to fail."
It essentially takes all the risk out of the system. And then you wonder why these huge institutional investors make these irrational decisions that they do... it's because they can't lose.
They pocket huge profits in the boom, then get bailed-out in the bust.
So it's not that anyone wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater so far I as know, it's that we don't want to keep reliving this shit over and over again for the rest of our lives.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

i've already stated i'm voting for obama.

Ah sorry, I must have missed that.

His particular stance on this issue was probably what won him my vote. Our infrastructure is in tatters, and he's the only one promising to do anything about it. And FFS it would be nice to see an administration willing to invest in our children and our country's future again.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

That's one of the campaign platforms in his blueprint.

It may be in his blueprint, but I dont see it. I am just seeing more regulation and taxes, which is not progrowth.

Well less regulation and less taxes have brought us to this point, you don't get anymore antigrowth than that.

Edit - So the tradeoff is short term growth for a long term bust. This is a poor choice and we've been fucked by it twice now in the last 25 years.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80
You obviously fail to understand LK and others' view - he is not defending the banks that went 30x leverage and screwed us all over - he is simply making the analysis that, give this has already happened, and you have two choices ("bail out" vs let them go broke), you have to choose the lesser of two evils to prevent a complete meltdown of the entire system.

Your position is simply based on wanting everything to fail because of your disdain for Bush.

I have tried to explain this situation many times over. However, people like PC Surgeon have a very hard time in understanding the logic of having to deal with the present and then trying to fix the past in the future.

I think they want everything to fail because they aren't intelligent enough to realize how to fix the problem.

It's akin throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you can't figure out that picking up the baby and moving it is a more logical technique.

I'm sorry, but there is little more anti-capitalist in attitude than this belief that a private for-profit corporation is "too big to fail."
It essentially takes all the risk out of the system. And then you wonder why these huge institutional investors make these irrational decisions that they do... it's because they can't lose.
They pocket huge profits in the boom, then get bailed-out in the bust.
So it's not that anyone wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater so far I as know, it's that we don't want to keep reliving this shit over and over again for the rest of our lives.

I've said precisely this many times before but LK poo-poos it every time.

He's clearly an intelligent guy, but he's sitting too high in that ivory tower to clearly see the world below him. Maybe we should send him some binoculars?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
intelligent pro-growth investments by government would be better.

So I take it you're voting for Obama then?

I dont think we are going to see that from any candidate.

That's one of the campaign platforms in his blueprint.

It may be in his blueprint, but I dont see it. I am just seeing more regulation and taxes, which is not progrowth.

Well, I'm sure that's because you've never read his blueprint, and just got your information about Obama's positions from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Actually I have read the blueprint and there are somethings in it that I like, but most of it more regulation and more taxes.

I dont listen to Rush and I rarely watch fox news, but it is a decent news source. And just so you know I get my news from various news sources, so I am not spoon feed news from any one source. But I guess you think if someone does not like obama they have must be a raving right wing loon.