• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

World Central Bankers warn US on deficits

Engineer

Elite Member
This is not a "We are the US and too bad because we can spend as much as we wish and borrow what we want thread". This thread is another example of the heightened problem of budget and trade deficits, which, IMO, is far worse than any SS or Medicare shortfall problem, if left unchecked. Deficits suck.


Click me!

Central Bankers Warn U.S. Over Deficits

1 hour, 40 minutes ago Business - AP


By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer

LONDON - Some of the world's major central bankers warned the United States on Friday that the international community could be running out of patience with the massive U.S. budget and trade deficits that have pushed the dollar lower and increased the cost of their exports in America.

But U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said before the official opening of the Group of Seven finance ministers meeting that factors including the weaker dollar and tougher budget discipline in Congress may finally start to restrain the growth of the trade gap.


America's own campaign to push China to untie its currency from the dollar as quickly as possible appeared to make little headway.


European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet said at a conference of business leaders and government officials that it was unacceptable for developed countries to run long-term current account deficits.


"The industrialized world as a whole is in deficit, there is a current account deficit, and there is no offsetting of the U.S. current account deficit by the other industrialized countries," Trichet said.


"That of course means that we are structurally asking the rest of the world to finance us. ... It doesn't seem to me that this is an acceptable and sustainable long-term feature of the present functioning of the global economy."


The U.S. deficits are expected to be a significant item of discussion during talks Saturday among the ministers from the G-7 nations ? Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.


The Bush administration has pledged to halve the budget deficit by 2009, but also intends to argue that trade partners concerned about the deficits should be speeding up their own growth and relying less on exports to America.


The U.S. deficits have been a drag on the dollar, putting European and Asian manufacturers who want a slice of the key U.S. consumer market at a disadvantage. The euro rose from about $1.20 in September to a high of $1.3667 at the end of December, and the dollar tumbled from about 111 yen in September to 102 yen toward the end of the year.


While Washington insists it has a "strong dollar" policy, many analysts believe the U.S. government is content to see the dollar fall because it makes U.S. exports cheaper.


Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said the trade and budget deficits and the purchase of large U.S. dollar reserves by Asian countries were combining to cause "global imbalances." He warned that the situation would improve only when governments agree on the "nature of the risks inherent in current international monetary arrangements."


Greenspan said a weaker dollar should narrow the deficit by making foreign goods more expensive to American consumers and U.S. exports cheaper for foreigners. One of the reasons that has not happened, he said, is that foreign companies have been willing to take a hit on their profit margins rather than raise prices in the U.S. market.


But Greenspan said there were indications that companies have reached a point where they are no longer willing to absorb the impact of the weaker dollar and will start boosting the price of their goods in America.


"Many other exporters to the United States have exhibited pricing strategies similar to those of European firms," he said. "Chinese exporters, of course, have not had to address this issue because China continues to hold its renminbi at a fixed rate against the dollar."


The United States has been campaigning strongly for China to unhook its renminbi, or currency, the yuan, from the U.S. dollar as soon as possible. U.S. Treasury Department (news - web sites) officials led by John Taylor, the undersecretary for international affairs, pushed their case Friday during talks with People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan and Chinese Finance Minister Jin Renqing.


The U.S. emphasized that market forces are important and will help China as it grows into the world's largest developing economy, a senior treasury official said after the talks. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States acknowledged China has taken steps but the United States isn't yet satisfied.


Zhou, however, hinted in his speech that China will be asking for a reprieve. He did not address the issue directly, but said China needed more time to reform its economy ? a position Chinese officials have maintained in advance of the meeting, where China has guest status.





Chinese leaders say they plan to let the yuan trade freely eventually but argue that for now, keeping the currency stable is the best option for the Chinese economy ? and by extension, the world economy.

"We know that reforming the financial sector takes time," Zhou said. "We need time to educate a new generation of bankers."

China's pegging of the yuan to the dollar has supercharged its exports as the dollar has declined. Critics contend the yuan is undervalued by as much as 40 percent.

Most observers expect the G-7's official statement to be little more than a repetition of its communique a year ago, when the ministers called for market forces to determine exchange rates.

The G-7 ministers have invited representatives from South Africa, Brazil, India and Russia this year, an indication they are taking seriously criticism that the G-7 is no longer representative of the world's economy.
 
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.

Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.

Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.
1983 was the only year to hit 6% of GDP. Bush has managed 5.0% ad 4.9% in the last two years and this year is off to a bad start (considering $174 billion was borrowed for Q1 and the 2004 Q4 GDP growth rate slowed to 3.1%)
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.

Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.
1983 was the only year to hit 6% of GDP. Bush has managed 5.0% ad 4.9% in the last two years and this year is off to a bad start (considering $174 billion was borrowed for Q1 and the 2004 Q4 GDP growth rate slowed to 3.1%)


no the deficits peaked at 3.5% of gdp. Try again.


5% of 11trillion is 550B. Last years defecit is 420 as i recall. Slight difference.
 
I acutally now understand the theory of the deficit vs GDP in that if you can outgrow your economy faster than your deficit, then it will eventually (in theory) wipe itself out or at least balance on a yearly basis. However, with current rising (regardless of projections, the deficit is "currently" rising until it shows a declind) yearly deficits that are adding to the overall deficit much faster than GDP growth, we are heading toward an increasingly hard situation to overcome without financial intervention.

The best method, IMO, is to cut government spending to the bone (i.e. NO PORK) and let the private sector outgrow the debt to the point of surpluses, at which time it may be a good idea to split the surpluses to new tax cuts and overall debt reduction, resulting in both a spurred economy (more tax money flowing in) and smaller deficits (again, resulting in even lower taxes due to smaller interest totals).

IMO....
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
I acutally now under the deficit vs GDP in that if you can outgrow your economy faster than your deficit, then it will eventually (in theory) wipe itself out or at least balance on a yearly basis. However, with current rising (regardless of projections, the deficit is "currently" rising until it shows a declind) yearly deficits that are adding to the overall deficit much faster than GDP growth, we are heading toward an increasingly hard situation to overcome without financial intervention.

The best method, IMO, is to cut government spending to the bone (i.e. NO PORK) and let the private sector outgrow the debt to the point of surpluses, at which time it may be a good idea to split the surpluses to new tax cuts and overall debt reduction, resulting in both a spurred economy (more tax money flowing in) and smaller deficits (again, resulting in even lower taxes due to smaller interest totals).

IMO....

A freeze in speending for several a couple of years would bring the deficit down.

 
Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.

That's why I stated "in dollar terms" not percentage of GDP or constant dollars. I'll leave the argument about what constitutes a tolerable or appropriate amount of borrowing to others, I'm just saying that borrowing $300b at 4% is a whole lot different than borrowing it at say 9.5% 😉
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.

That's why I stated "in dollar terms" not percentage of GDP or constant dollars. I'll leave the argument about what constitutes a tolerable or appropriate amount of borrowing to others, I'm just saying that borrowing $300b at 4% is a whole lot different than borrowing it at say 9.5% 😉


Well my debt load as percentage of income is far higher than the goverment right now and I am considered a good risk 😀

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.

Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.
1983 was the only year to hit 6% of GDP. Bush has managed 5.0% ad 4.9% in the last two years and this year is off to a bad start (considering $174 billion was borrowed for Q1 and the 2004 Q4 GDP growth rate slowed to 3.1%)
no the deficits peaked at 3.5% of gdp. Try again.


5% of 11trillion is 550B. Last years defecit is 420 as i recall. Slight difference.
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.

That's why I stated "in dollar terms" not percentage of GDP or constant dollars. I'll leave the argument about what constitutes a tolerable or appropriate amount of borrowing to others, I'm just saying that borrowing $300b at 4% is a whole lot different than borrowing it at say 9.5% 😉


I do agree, that is why that we may have not grown the deficit even faster than we have the last few years as the government has turned over old debt with high interest rates to new debt with much lower interest rates.

However, with a rising interest rate environement, partially spurned on by none other than "deficits", it will become increasingly more expensive as new debt and rolled over debt interest rates start to rise, resulting in a much larger yearly interest payment on the overall deficit.

Regardless of theories or sound principles, it scares the crap out of me to see 7,500,000,000,000 worth of debt and adding 400+ Billion to it each year.
 
I acutally now understand the theory of the deficit vs GDP in that if you can outgrow your economy faster than your deficit, then it will eventually (in theory) wipe itself out or at least balance on a yearly basis. However, with current rising (regardless of projections, the deficit is "currently" rising until it shows a declind) yearly deficits that are adding to the overall deficit much faster than GDP growth, we are heading toward an increasingly hard situation to overcome without financial intervention.

The best method, IMO, is to cut government spending to the bone (i.e. NO PORK) and let the private sector outgrow the debt to the point of surpluses, at which time it may be a good idea to split the surpluses to new tax cuts and overall debt reduction, resulting in both a spurred economy (more tax money flowing in) and smaller deficits (again, resulting in even lower taxes due to smaller interest totals).

IMO....

Give this man a gold star, you just affirmed some of the principles of supply side economics, perhaps without even realizing it 😉 Your plan would be an excellent way to go about it, and you didn't even suggest raising taxes to close the deficit. Bravo!
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
One needs to examine the rates at which the debt was incurred as well, and the economic situation in the period in which the borrowing takes place. Debt is after all simply deferred taxation, and it's hard to dispute the argument that lowering taxes in an economic contraction period isn't a bad idea. And yes, the additional debt load we're taking on now is not a good thing, but not as bad as it was in say Reagan's era when we were borrowing about the same amount in dollar terms but rates were several hundred basis points higher.

Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.
1983 was the only year to hit 6% of GDP. Bush has managed 5.0% ad 4.9% in the last two years and this year is off to a bad start (considering $174 billion was borrowed for Q1 and the 2004 Q4 GDP growth rate slowed to 3.1%)
no the deficits peaked at 3.5% of gdp. Try again.


5% of 11trillion is 550B. Last years defecit is 420 as i recall. Slight difference.
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.



maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
Actually During the reagan years we had defecits as high as 6% of gdp. This last recession topped about at about 3.5% of gdp. Adjusted for inflation they are not record breaking deficits either.

That's why I stated "in dollar terms" not percentage of GDP or constant dollars. I'll leave the argument about what constitutes a tolerable or appropriate amount of borrowing to others, I'm just saying that borrowing $300b at 4% is a whole lot different than borrowing it at say 9.5% 😉


Well my debt load as percentage of income is far higher than the goverment right now and I am considered a good risk 😀

LOL! 😀


P.S. In my analysis above, I forgot to mention that the lowering of the overall deficit could (probably) also result in lower interest rates. At least lower until the point that the economy is "overheated" or inflation is rising resulting in larger interest rates.
 
I don't know about you guys, but I can't stand owing someone something, and it's even worst knowing you can't pay it back. It kinda makes me feel disgusted thinking about debt/deficits. I wish Bush would do more to fix the damn deficits, it's going to become a problem soon if we don't.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't know about you guys, but I can't stand owing someone something, and it's even worst knowing you can't pay it back. It kinda makes me feel disgusted thinking about debt/deficits. I wish Bush would do more to fix the damn deficits, it's going to become a problem soon if we don't.



All debt is not bad. Only debt that is wasted on poor investmests/purchases is bad.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't know about you guys, but I can't stand owing someone something, and it's even worst knowing you can't pay it back. It kinda makes me feel disgusted thinking about debt/deficits. I wish Bush would do more to fix the damn deficits, it's going to become a problem soon if we don't.



All debt is not bad. Only debt that is wasted on poor investmests/purchases is bad.


That's true whether it's debt or surplus! 😉
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2



My guess is those numbers include social security trust fund debt. There is no way to get there otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2



My guess is those numbers include social security trust fund debt. There is no way to get there otherwise.
Are SS trust fund debts "On-Budget"?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2



My guess is those numbers include social security trust fund debt. There is no way to get there otherwise.
Are SS trust fund debts "On-Budget"?



Well 420B/11 trillion is not 5% either.

however, revenues vs outlays is 3.6%. about the same 4.9-1.3.

Call me confused...
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2
My guess is those numbers include social security trust fund debt. There is no way to get there otherwise.
Are SS trust fund debts "On-Budget"?
Well 420B/11 trillion is not 5% either.

however, revenues vs outlays is 3.6%. about the same 4.9-1.3.

Call me confused...
You're looking at the wrong numbers.

On-Budget deficit for 2003 was $538.4 billion. For 2004 it was $567.4 billion. Check out Table 1
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
According to the CBO, 2003 had a deficit of 5% of GDP. 2004 was 4.9% of GDP. I'm talking about on-budget...debt held by the public.
maybe those were projections as the actualls appear to be lower.
Nope.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
Revenues Outlays On-Budget SocialSecurity PostalService Total
2003 16.4 19.9 -5.0 1.4 * -3.5 36.1
2004 16.3 19.8 -4.9 1.3 * -3.6 37.2
My guess is those numbers include social security trust fund debt. There is no way to get there otherwise.
Are SS trust fund debts "On-Budget"?
Well 420B/11 trillion is not 5% either.

however, revenues vs outlays is 3.6%. about the same 4.9-1.3.

Call me confused...
You're looking at the wrong numbers.

On-Budget deficit for 2003 was $538.4 billion. For 2004 it was $567.4 billion. Check out Table 1



Those numbers include social security then. As last year finished up with 420B deficit.
 
Y'all don't get it. Current deficits are intended to destroy the fiscal integrity of the govt, plain and simple. Deficits are only a means to an end, overwhelming debt maintenance liabilities. That's currently over $330B/yr, at record low interest rates- the third largest single expense behind the military and all of HHS... Before the looters are through with us, we'll owe $10T, and be paying 7% interest, or more- that's $700B/yr... forever, since the whole deal is designed to make maintenance, let alone payback, impossible... Other than via explosive inflation of the currency...
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
You're looking at the wrong numbers.

On-Budget deficit for 2003 was $538.4 billion. For 2004 it was $567.4 billion. Check out Table 1
Those numbers include social security then. As last year finished up with 420B deficit.
Link?
 
Back
Top