A communist negro will fix america
>Yes we can
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/03/28/u-s-debt-is-heading-toward-20-trillion-where-its-been-where-its-going-and-why/#5d657f723a0c
>The fact that the U.S. national debt has surpassed $19 trillion raises a number of important concerns. What are the consequences of amassing such a large public debt? How will it affect the future of our children and grandchildren? Will the government increase our tax burden? Is this just a house of cards waiting to collapse? These are only a few of the questions on the minds of Americans as we face the largest debt in our nation’s 240-year history.
fuckin QE
>>72586236
> debt
> deficit
Slow down there Hung Lo
>>72586236
Don't worry, i hear the UN made an international currency so we couldn't get away with printing wealth anymore. Just switch away frpm an American reserve.
If you want to see where the US is heading take a close look at Japan.
>>72586236
Thanks Jews
>>72586649
Cruz liked this idea
>>72586967
Cruz is a dipshit, then. It's all good to point put the Triffin dilemma, but you don't advocate moving away if you're benefiting from it.
>>72586687
Yeah, deflation despite huge deficits, public debt, and QE. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT?
Well, basically anyone who wasn't a fuckwit Austrian/etc. fixated on imaginary inflation.
One day we'll stop arguing about how to reduce muh deficits and realise that deficits aren't good or bad - they're just an accounting residual of private sector saving.
>>72586236
They are hiding falling economy thanks to their social policies by printing money backed by promises.
>>72587496
2009: obama happened.
>>72586236
and yet it's still less than japan as a percentage of gdp
>>72587876
Japan's debt is surreal
Even Keynes would be scared
>>72587876
do you HONESTLY FUCKING THINK that makes it even slightly better you fucking jew
>>72588109
It's unrepayable. /pol/ has a hardon for Japan but they've been in decline for over a decade. With a shrinking population and debt at 227% of GDP it can only get worse there.
>>72586236
oh you're shocked at that number huh? wait til trump gets in, that number will be $25T-$30T thanks to that fucking wall.
>>72588474
Topkek
>>72588396
they won't be able to repay it anytime soon but it is still easily serviceable, and all the debt is owned domestically, so it's not going to hurt their economy.
>>72588474
>implying Americans are paying for that wall
>>72588474
at least people have accepted the coming of the wall
>>72588396
>>72588109
Keynes mostly wrote within the context of a gold standard, which imposes a harsh restriction on the size of government deficits because of the required borrowing operations.
There's nothing scary about >200% Debt:GDP if you realise that the government can always pay it, or issue new bonds each time, and only needs worry about REAL issues like unemployment and inflation.
Now if it's the word "debt" or the prospect of interest payments that scares you then you should demand your government stop issuing bonds and just overtly spend the money into existence. I mean that's basically what fiat sovereigns already do, they just buy and sell bonds afterward as a tool to control interest rates (has no direct influence on inflation as people erroneously seem to assume).
If what scares you is that the government spends more than it taxes, most of the time, then you need to get into your head that public deficits are private surpluses, and the only way everyone can spend less than their income is if the government does the reverse.
I reiterate: Low unemployment and low inflation are the major goals of economic policy. Governments shouldn't compromise those goals by over- or underspending. Currently, most western governments are underspending as evidenced by mass unemployment.
>>72588396
A shrinking population is actually good for modern countries, you will have less people, but better and more qualified people. Technology will never substitute even the lower japanese class.
They just need to put their shit together and stop spending so much public money.
>>72588396
High public debt just reflects the fact that Japanese households have a high propensity to save. Nothing wrong with that. If interest payments on that "debt" are too high then your beef is with monetary policy authorities not fiscal.
>>72588855
>A shrinking population is actually good for modern countries
I agree as long as productivity outpaces the negative population growth (which it should).
>>72586236
And the Japanese have a debt of 11 trillion with a much much much smaller economy. What are you guys going to do?
>>72589020
And that is the amazing part: that does happen in animeland
The debt just got $4 trillion higher!!!
>>72586236
Come join our may day chat for happening watch general
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=
#Mayday
>>72588970
and the goyim still falling for their tricks
>>72589165
What's the deal with the happening? What happens today?
It's ok. Trump's going to add 25 trillion to it
>>72588776
>Keynes mostly wrote within the context of a gold standard, which imposes a harsh restriction on the size of government deficits because of the required borrowing operations.
The gold standard was dead as a doornail in European countries by the 1930s. And government deficits aren't restricted under a gold standard, TRADE BALANCES are, which then AS A RESULT OF TRADE BALANCES BEING RELATIVELY BALANCED, HELPS WITH BALANCING GOVERNMENT DEFICITS. I can even explain how the gold payment mechanism enforces relative trade balances if you'd like.
I heard Keynes was jew
If not his friends were.
>>72588855
>more qualified people
No Brazil, a diploma qualifies you for an entry level position in a job. "EXPERIENCE" is what surpasses and makes someone "overqualified".
The media age in any decent given occupation is that of the baby boomers, who are going to retire all around the same time frame.
You'll be introducing new inexperienced talent, into a market where people have spent decades practicing their specific craft and not a generalized education.
Quality, as well as Quanity(demand) is going to take a hit, leading to incompetent practices as well as business failures.
>>72591147
Median, not media
>>72590603
If the government is upholding a policy of convertibility to gold, then it must borrow back its currency to avoid runs on its central bank. This means it must accept whatever rates it can get from bond markets and is vulnerable to the same problems as a euro state or country that pegs its currency.
Floating non-convertible currency gives the government the ability to spend and tax in whatever proportion will see the desired level of unemployment. This is not an option for convertibility regimes, over the long term. There's a reason the gold standard is always dropped whenever a country goes to war.
I'm pretty sure I know what you mean about trade balances but please go into detail because it's interesting.
>>72591147
Jap makes a lot of money , they sell cars, tech, biomedicine, etc
Where does all the money go? They are not socialists as far as I know
>>72586236
>printed
this is how you know someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
it's only a small technicality that QE isn't actually about "printing" money since it's creating it electronically, but the technicality makes a useful shibboleth.
>>72591291
A increasing median age bracket + negative birthrates + retirement benefits = More taxes.
If the economy is doing well, then the percent of taxes coming from people can stay artificially low... But if the economy doesn't do well....
This demographic crises, is just beginning to unfold. It'll reach full impact 20 years from now, after we can't do anything about it.
>>72591381
Yeah. "Printing money" can mean:
>Creating reserves in Fed accounts and buying government debt with them
or
>Creating reserves out of nowhere and giving them out for free
or
>Literal manufacturing of cash to replace old worn out banknotes & coins
The difference is yuuuuuge but whenever someone says "printing money" they never take the time to clarify what they mean. Almost always it's a sign of an ignorant person. I hate the phrase.
>>72591291
Right now the median age of Japan is 40. Still easily within working years.... But once it hits 60...
>>72586236
Why do people blame the president for the economy, I don't understand. He has lobbyist, senators, economic advisors that will grant or block bills into the house, not saying the guy wanted to change the economy but blaming the president for economic failure is due to both cabinets in the house republicans and democrats alike have brought the country into economic turmoil.
yeah, one of these days(wink wink). Were gonna have to pay ourselves back(wink wink).
>>72591838
They could teach the girls in schools that having 6 kids is normal and healthy
>Best wife is a housewife that raise the kids and is loyal
What can go wrong?
>>72591949
Because it's obongo that chose personally the guys who control the economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
>>72591949
If your on train tracks, and you see the train coming, you don't keep standing on the tracks out of principle.
When the economy crashed, he should have stopped spending, but that would be against principle.... So now it's 19 trillion dollars of debt.
>>72586236
The cycle is at this point unstoppable until an actual economic collapse happens, and it's our own damn fault. The US will go the path of Rome, a Dark Age will happen, and things will start over once there's a collapse, barring nukes causing humans to go extinct.
The world economy is built on exchanging debts via fiat currencies. The US prints money backed with nothing save faith, and so does nearly the entire world.
>>72586236
>mfw Japan tries to pander
>>72592097
>they could
Yeah, they could do a lot of things.... Then /pol/ wouldn't need to exist anymore.
But what people consider these days to be their greatest "freedoms", their reasons to live.... Are killing them.
They love the disease, just not the symptoms.
>>72592289
>The US prints money backed with nothing save faith, and so does nearly the entire world.
even if it was backed with (say) gold, all you're doing then is trading faith in the currency itself for faith in gold.
so if confidence in gold is altered, the value of your currency is altered even though the responsibility of government policy hasn't changed. hardly ideal.
>>72592483
Gold is a finite resource. Empty promises, are not.
Question is, who holds title to all the shit?
Because that's what's going to matter when it all goes south.
Hint: It ain't you or me.
>>72592602
we can alter the number of promises as required, the amount of gold/value of that gold will likely alter itself in the way most effective at fucking up our plans.
the debt is meaningless as long as natural inflation is allowed to occur. if you add to the debt at a rate lower than natural inflation you are basically paying it off.
>>72592775
>promoting currency manipulation
>>72593035
i would prefer manipulating currency to help society to manipulating society to help currency.
>>72592289
Fiat money is upheld by the fact that a government will force a country to pay a tax liability in that currency only. That's how ALL money works, in fact, even if the government foolishly promises to give you gold or a foreign currency on request in exchange for their own currency.
As long as a state can enforce tax liabilities its currency will have value. So yes, if the US collapsed politically the Dollar would die. Hardly a useful insight.
PAY DEBTS YOU FAT FUCKS
lmfao
>>72593035
More like using money as a tool to achieve macroeconomic goals such as full employment.
It's clearly better to live in a prosperous country where everyone has a job and prices are stable than to compromise these ambitions just so you can have a favourable exchange rate and terms of trade.
>>72593315
Society isn't helped by anyone by being disingenuous.
What exactly is the difference between welfare or Communism and what your doing? More importantly, how can you hold the sociopaths of the world accountable, when they're just better at playing the game then you?
>>72593542
>>72593315
You realize you guys are pushing Communism right? Direct Goverment economic interference? The thing we've been doing and building on for the past 60 years? The thing that has put us in this rock and a hard place, tightrope act of economic disaster?
The Liberals shell out billions of dollars of Welfare in the name of, "increasing employment", and it doesn't work. You think your plans are any different?
>>72593605
>Society isn't helped by anyone by being disingenuous.
i disagree. (and, in any case, a remotely free market with rational individuals will always encourage people to be disingenuous if it maximises their personal gain.
>What exactly is the difference between welfare or Communism and what your doing?
you can have welfare with a gold backed currency. communism proposes a stateless society without currency.
>More importantly, how can you hold the sociopaths of the world accountable, when they're just better at playing the game then you?
either they break the rules and get fucked, or they find a hole in the rules which we patch and then fuck them if they try to keep using.
>>72593871
communism proposes a society without government. what you're speaking of is socialism.
the government can interfere in the economy without nationalizing industry or state planning (no, economic interference isn't the same as state planning!)
>>72594000
>economic interference isn't the same as state planning
Uh, yeah it is. How exactly do you think the Goverment manipulates the currency? They go to someone, tell them to lie or do something, if they don't comply, they throw them in jail.
And what Communism proposes, is not the same as what it delivers.
We've went from a stable free market, to a balancing act involving billions of people's livelihoods in order to become "richer".
>>72588396
Any other Aussies know why our country is doing so well here?
Is this a good time to buy some bonds, lads?
>>72591240
The basic gist of it is that as trade imbalances deepen within any dyad of gold standard economies, bullion must necessarily flow from one to the other to cover the deepening imbalances. This causes the currency of the trade deficit country to fall relative to the trade surplus currency, which then counterbalances whatever domestic dynamics caused the trade imbalance in the first place. It's one of the few really stellar qualities of a convertibility regime, and one Keynes sought to replicate through the Bancor.
>>72594382
>They go to someone, tell them to lie or do something, if they don't comply, they throw them in jail.
lol. you'd have been better with sticking to "they'll print money and we'll travel back to Weimar Germany!"
>And what Communism proposes, is not the same as what it delivers.
we have a name for what communist countries actually delivered: socialism. indeed we even split socialism into all sorts of little varieties based on what kind of socialism it is and what their failings were! some types of socialism didn't even stem from a communist revolution!
>We've went from a stable free market, to a balancing act involving billions of people's livelihoods in order to become "richer".
what time period are you proposing was a "stable free market"?
When Barack Obama took power in the United States, it represented the final stage of a long coup by the British Empire. After the chaotic dissolution of their crypto-colony the USSR, a new entity was needed whose sole function would be the production of military assets without regard to cost or profitability. This is why $4 trillion were printed by the Federal Reserve, of which $1 trillion was allocated to Lockheed, with the rest to be disbursed to other groups pursuing the research and development of dual-use and military technologies.
The impact of inflationary monetary policy on civilian commerce was calculated to bring about a backdoor confiscation of private wealth. Now, only households whose members work in some way, directly or indirectly, for the defense industry or its myriad of supporting industries, can hope to have a lifestyle resembling that of the old American middle class. As long as these industries keep winning government contracts (and they will, being subsidized through public debt acquisition), taxes and salaries will be paid and the cycle will carry on indefinitely.
>>72593871
>The Liberals shell out billions of dollars of Welfare in the name of, "increasing employment", and it doesn't work. You think your plans are any different?
Sorry that I didn't explain my point more thoroughly. You see, the economics profession understood how to reach full employment by the 30s and during/after WW2 put it into practice. It came to an end when stupid cunts were hoodwinked into thinking the 70s oil price hike and its associated inflation was somehow a consequence of Keynesianism. But that period from the 40s to the 70s is seen as an economic golden age in western countries for good reason.
The long story made short is that the economy has a maximum output potential and the amount of demand (spending) determines how close actual output gets to potential. If demand exceeds productive capacity then prices will rise (inflation) and if demand is lower then you get unemployment.
If spending drops then unemployment (of labour and resources) will rise. So the policy response to unemployment should be tax cuts or, if you want bigger government, higher spending. In the current episode the deficit is still much too small.
>>72594545
Keating and Costello did a great job of setting up a culture of high household debt in Australia over the last few decades. The highest in the world, actually. This is how Costello managed to run surpluses for 10(?) years and of course sold it as a good thing.
Surpluses are in fact deficits for the private sector (by definition) and most often they are supported by accumulation of household debt.
>>72593871
Transfer payment schemes (what you would call "gibesmedats") have never been advocated by economists to be efficient in reaching employment goals. They have been advocated to reach social goals. They don't really do that particularly well either, FWIW.
>>72594382
shit, also forgot to point out that economic interference isn't remotely the same as state planning.
state planning is "we have calculated the demand for toothbrushes and decided what factories will produce them" tier.
even in areas controlled by the state like hospitals, the degree of planning involved is nowhere near that bad (and uses tolerances, etc, so that you're not fucked if they underestimated.)
but this isn't directly linked to currency manipulation. (which is often handled by the central bank to maintain a stable interest rate/currency value instead of fluctuating wildly with the price of gold.)
>>72587324
> they're just an accounting residual of private sector saving
that is mosler's economics
How does inflation work though? If we printed $1 billon dollars out of thin air, how do we know our dollar is worth less now? No one tells me how much my dollar is worth or what it can buy.
Whats the domino effect that happens when you print more money out of thin air that leads to money being worth less?
>>72594781
Floating currencies can already do this, it's just that we don't see it with the Dollar because everyone in the world wants to save USD (and therefore must run trade surpluses against the US). The same is true to a lesser extent for other reserve currencies.
If nobody had any particular preference for saving up foreign currencies then trade balances would automatically balance out. Think of it this way: you export either to get imports or to accumulate foreign currency. Those are the only two ways a country benefits from sending real goods and services overseas.
>>72595123
MMT is sort of right in a sort of basic, superficial way. Really this Aussie is more akin to a post-Keynesian or Minskyite.
>>72594792
>"they'll print money and we'll travel back to Weimar Germany!"
This is a classic. Other signs that the person has run out of arguments include:
>Muh Zimbabwe or other abysmally mismanaged nation
>Muh Greece or other eurozone state
>Muh Argentina or other pegged currency regime
>Muh Ancient Rome or other historical empire
>>72595299
This is true, but it's more complicated today because trade isn't settled bilaterally anymore; most often trade is settled multilaterally, especially with the US. And if everyone isn't moving in tandem with any given economic action announced by anyone else, you'll see anomalous trade deficits or surpluses.
It sounds to me like you have the USD preference a little screwy: Countries want increasing shares of the US imports market, therefore they devalue their currency and subsidize manufacturers, reducing real household income and increasing their trade surplus.
As a function of increased imports from the US, their central bank increases its holdings of USD because Americans don't pay for things in Yuan, and Chinese nationals don't pay for things in Dollars, so the central bank must purchase those Dollars for Yuan.
But herein lies the rub: If the currency is devalued relative to the dollar, as it certainly is the case with the Yen and the Yuan and probably the Euro, then whenever the inflating pressure stops, those central banks are going to eat massive, staggering losses.
>>72594983
Oh? So that's not good then.
>>72595123
Yeah, but it's true regardless of who says it.
>>72595763
This is what our major political parties (and probably all other parties too, if you asked them) would have you believe:
>Public debt BAD, and therefore
>Private debt GOOD
Private debt accumulation can't be sustained forever. Public debt can. That's not to say the government should spend indefinitely, just that its spending and taxing decisions shouldn't be determined by something as silly as muh deficit.
>>72595698
>>72595763, this will be helpful for you, too.
>Countries want increasing shares of the US imports market, therefore they devalue their currency and subsidize manufacturers, reducing real household income and increasing their trade surplus.
I'll expand on this a bit. When you devalue a currency, you basically say that you are selling currency at X% below its current price point on the currency exchange.
Currency devaluations generally hurt net depositors and help net borrowers, which is to say currency devaluations generally hurt the household sector (who puts bank deposits into the financial system) and generally help the manufacturing and industry sectors (who borrow in order to purchase plant or real estate to produce stuff.)
When currency is devalued, this reduces real household income (houses can't buy as much stuff anymore) and this corresponding decline in consumption leads to greater trade surpluses, because a trade surplus or deficit is just the outcome of (Production minus Consumption.) Another way to look at it is that a trade surplus is simply importing demand from some other country because the surplus country has insufficient consumption for its production. Correspondingly, a trade deficit could be (and generally is) viewed as importing supply.
>>72595999
>Private debt accumulation can't be sustained forever. Public debt can.
Neither can be sustained forever, and it's far more dangerous for public debt to balloon out of control because there are zero market warnings before debt will no longer be tolerated by the market. There aren't even consistent ranges where a state can say "well lads we're in trouble now." Example: Argentina collapses with government debt-to-GDP in the 60% range where Japan deals with government debt-to-GDP in the 200% range. And when the market will no longer accept your currency, it's already far, far too late to fix the problem.
>>72596588
I'm surprised that you're aware of MMT yet still hold the opinion that sovereign governments are vulnerable to bond markets.
What do you say to the point that Argentina was borrowing USD to maintain its currency peg while Japan only borrows yen?
>>72586236
>>72596779
A key difference, but not as key as the fact that Argentina hasn't got a credible government most of the time. As someone who seems to lean towards MMT, you know full well that market credibility is key for that theory to work, because the value of currency is that it can be used to pay off financial debts. SOME governments are indeed vulnerable to bond markets. Most are not, and certainly the ones who are most talked about in relation to debt and "bond values" (i.e the US) are absolutely safeguarded from such nonsense
If there's no credibility that the currency can be maintained at any given valuation, MMT falls apart at the seams. These two points are correlated, I should think.
>>72596588
>Argentina collapses with government debt-to-GDP in the 60% range where Japan deals with government debt-to-GDP in the 200% range
Is Japan not primarily internal debt and Argentina external?
>>72594983
Why must it be one or the other? ('High' government or high household debt)
Is it not possible for there to be a small government surplus without high household debt?
Also, how did they go about setting up this high household debt? Is it still there as it was between the late 80s and 07?
>>72586967
source?
>>72586236
>printed 4 trillion
lol no, some jew have created 4 trillion in DEBT on a bank account.
>>72588396
How old is this map? No S.Sudan?
>>72597128
What you're asking is like asking "why can't it be noon and midnight at the same time?"
Because surpluses come from somewhere else in the economy. If the government is running a surplus, it comes from households or business, but probably from households.
If households are running a surplus, it comes from government or business, but probably from business. If business is running a surplus, it comes from government or households, and probably from government.
Household surplus = Raised savings, lower consumption. Higher nominal interest paid out by the financial sector but decreased sales means businesses take the brunt of the surplus and the business deficit will be by exactly what the household surplus is.
Business surplus = Subsidization of their industry. If governments raised taxes or if they just shuffled money around to subsidize the industry, it still comes from the government sector and this is money they would not spend on something else.
Government surplus = Government didn't spend all of their tax receipts. Households got taxed and received no benefit from that taxation.
>>72597037
>SOME governments are indeed vulnerable to bond markets. Most are not, and certainly the ones who are most talked about in relation to debt and "bond values" (i.e the US) are absolutely safeguarded from such nonsense
By issuing its own currency and only borrowing in it, a government can ensure that it won't be forced to default. Then the only remaining question is the (stupid) political choice to default.
Suppose the US has a referendum and adds a clause in the constitution that if the government issues bonds, it must not default on them.
Another point, pretend I said the government can run deficits forever (irrespective of whether or not it issues bonds, and putting aside silly legal stipulations like the debt ceiling). Is it not a true statement?
>>72597800
Yeah, that's basically true.
>>72597585
>Government surplus = Government didn't spend all of their tax receipts. Households got taxed and received no benefit from that taxation.
Or... gov can return the surplus to the citizens, or move ahead the schedule of some projects that are waiting for funding.
For example as a result of a higher revenue than expected our gov reduced the VAT by 1% just recently.
And while they did not return the surplus they have moved up the schedule on some infrastructure programs to this year instead of only starting them in the next.
Who really understands this crap?
I have no clue what the jews are doing with the money.
I'm 100% certain they know what they're doing, and I'm sure they are operating with the best of intentions.
>>72597128
This is exactly right >>72597585 except I would describe taxation as taking back money the government has spent, not the other way around.
>>72597585
>If households are running a surplus, it comes from government or business
So when you say come from, you mean could have been spent there, but wasn't?
>>72598017
>Or... gov can return the surplus to the citizens, or move ahead the schedule of some projects that are waiting for funding.
Both of which imply that it's not just sitting around in some Federal bank account. Hence, not a government surplus, or at least not one for very long.
>>72598157
>So when you say come from, you mean could have been spent there, but wasn't?
Precisely. Lost sales means lost revenue, which in turn means that the household surplus is counteracted - to the dollar - by the business deficit. Economies sum to zero, which is not to say that they don't grow, but they all grow more or less together or else they don't grow at all.
>>72598017
That would be spending and eliminate the surplus, surely?
>>72598248
>Both of which imply that it's not just sitting around in some Federal bank account. Hence, not a government surplus, or at least not one for very long.
You're confusing cause and effect.
It's not sitting in some federal bank account because a decision was made to use that money. Thus eliminating the surplus.
What I'm saying is that gov surplus can be easily managed, while debt is a lot trickier to handle. Especially when it's a lot more publicly acceptable to return tax money and lower taxes than to raise them.
>>72598066
>best of intentions
I fucking wish.
>>72598272
Yes... And the problem with that is...?
Furthermore, surplus can also come from having a positive trade balance. In this case it can be fine to just build up a surplus.
>>72598448
Surpluses come from somewhere, which means having a large surplus can be hazardous to where-ever that surplus is coming from.
Just a thought:
Buy bitcoin while the USD still functions to do so.
>>72598106
>taking back money the government has spent
So any money people or companies have is just money governments have spent? Why is that?
>>72598505
>Surpluses come from somewhere, which means having a large surplus can be hazardous to where-ever that surplus is coming from.
Who gives a fuck if its coming from another country, if they mismanage themselves then let them suffer? Why is my country supposed to be responsible for another?
>>72598536
Essentially yes. Australian dollars can only come from the Australian government. So, the government spends some and taxes some back over a period, and the difference is total non-government net saving in that period, aka the deficit.
>>72598664
Because if the surplus persists for too long, the other country may decide to tell you to fuck off, intervene in trade, and suddenly your surplus has nowhere to go. This probably isn't a problem for an economy the size of Israel, but it's a hell of a problem for China and Germany, especially when Trump takes the '16 elections and starts playing hardball on trade.
That shit is just impossible to repay, what stops the government from saying fuck it all and kill the banks/fed again to reset that debt?
Not like printing money should be done by a fucking private bank to lend it to the government at an interest rate, meaning that they end up paying more that what it's actually being put into circulation
Its all just jew banker nonsense. Non of it is real, how can anyone take this stuff seriously? Money is a tool of measurement like inches or Fahrenheit.
>>72593381
Tfw you realize Israel literally wouldn't even exist without the US..
>>72598531
LOL
>>72598664
Also, mismanaging their countries is a misnomer. You fucking little heeb shit, what happened was that you devalued your currency to get your piggy little hands on some other country's market and now you have the audacity to claim they mismanaged their economy? All they did was play on a level field, you're the one tilting shit in your favor.
And this is how EVERY currency manipulator thinks: They devalue their currency then claim it's because Israel/China/Germany is just oh-so-smarter and wiser because their citizens piously save where spendthrift Spain/America/Greece just spend and spend and spend!
But in a global economy, ANY shift in currency valuations has immediate impacts on the relative savings and consumption rates of every other economy on the fucking planet. Globalism's a fucking bitch.
>>72598448
>And the problem with that is...?
Nothing, if you spend it.
But if you spend your surplus on something (like lowering taxes or improving infrastructure faster), you've for practical purposes eliminated the surplus by increasing spending.
>>72598758
You mean they will do the things they should have been doing in the first place to prevent the creation and the sustenance of such a trade deficit?
Sure if the other country reacts then the honey train will end, but why not enjoy it while it lasts?
Of course I'm talking in broad strokes, it might be beneficial for China to work with the US to limit the trade deficit. But keep in mind that their real goal would be to maximize the surplus in the long term, not eliminating it.
You're pretty much saying the same thing. It is not in China's interest for the trade deficit to be eliminated.
>>72598755
What do you think about the underground economy in general? How do untaxed labor earnings, perhaps as represented through barter but not necessarily, play into your model of "government deficit = household surplus"?
>>72599035
>You're pretty much saying the same thing.
I am absolutely not saying the same thing, because I understand that any economy with persistent deep trade imbalances will collapse in on itself. Either the US will intervene in trade and both China and Germany will enter a very long recession or China will succeed in rebalancing its economy towards greater consumption.
Germany's fucked and is too retarded to even try so I expect Germany will either spend the next 20 years in a deep recession, accruing massive amounts of government debt as it tries to stabilize a rebalancing that needed to be done with decades ago, or it will contract all at once and revert to a 2000-ish GDP. As the latter option is politically non-viable and will result in bloodshed, I rather hope it's the former.
>>72598755
Also comes from the way banking works, yes? In fact, wouldn't the majority of it come from the way banking works?
>>72586236
>national debt
lol
good luck trying to collect on that
>>72599006
What do you think of Mosler's perspective that huge trade deficits are like the other country paying war reparations?
In other words you get a huge amount of extra real goods & services just because other countries want to sit on your dollars forever. Is this not to the advantage of the US for as long as it lasts?
The worst that can happen is you get a lot of foreigners that might decide in the future to import more goods & services from America and maybe that would trigger inflation, but the government can deal with that.
>>72587324
except they are predicated on threatening the public
so yes bad
forever
>>72599006
This has nothing to do with Israel specifically you moron, I was talking in general terms.
Israel is running on a trade deficit, and is 55th place in the world in terms of balance (with the US being last).
So take your insults to the Germans and Chinese, for pulling this crap.
Furthermore, it is the fault of the other countries in Europe/US for not reacting for the actions of Germany and China (and others). This is the job description of the gov, and yours is failing.
As for a level playing field, grow up, this is not some special kid's class room, no one is playing on a level field.
>>72599024
Agreed.
>>72599238
The problem with Germany/China is that (presumably) they will lose their trade surplus. Thus they failed in maximizing the trade surplus in the long run, perhaps by being too greedy.
That doesn't make the trade imbalance bad in itself.
>>72599084
Well that just means someone has illegally saved more money than they should have, and it makes the "household surplus" bigger.
Not my model. Government deficit = non-government surplus is just accounting fact.
>>72594545
CHYNA
>>72599354
>In other words you get a huge amount of extra real goods & services just because other countries want to sit on your dollars forever. Is this not to the advantage of the US for as long as it lasts?
Comes at a cost, and this cost is higher domestic household debt and higher domestic unemployment, and I would consider neither of these to be an advantage. Furthermore, if it is the goal of the Federal Reserve to have full employment (it is) then this trade deficit, which is an extension of the reserve currency "exorbitant privilege" argument bandied about on /pol/, is directly in opposition to the Fed.
>>72599409
>Furthermore, it is the fault of the other countries in Europe/US for not reacting for the actions of Germany and China (and others). This is the job description of the gov, and yours is failing.
>As for a level playing field, grow up, this is not some special kid's class room, no one is playing on a level field.
They're going to be the ones hurting, not the US. In a global economy where demand is flagging, the most valuable resource on the planet is demand. And the US has demand by the carload.
>>72594819
>But that period from the 40s to the 70s is seen as an economic golden age in western countries for good reason.
a keynesian making unfalsifiable claims?
color me surprised
>240-year history
Dawww
>>72595646
>all failed states that had policies resembling my plans, they don't count!
>>72599273
Well okay, all money is financial and there is no such thing as a financial asset without a liability. As it happens the only way you can pay taxes is with AUD, and every dollar the Australian government spends into existence is a liability for the government.
Bank credit is created from nothing but nonetheless it still represents an asset & liability pair. You owe the bank or the bank owes you.
The only money that is an asset for the private sector as a whole, or what might be called a "net financial asset", is a liability of the government; that is cash dollars, RBA reserves, or treasury bonds.
>>72599405
The existence of the public sector in any form is predicated on threatening the public. If you want to argue against having any education system, or legal system, or military, etc. then fine but be aware of what you're arguing.
>>72599696
>They're going to be the ones hurting, not the US. In a global economy where demand is flagging, the most valuable resource on the planet is demand. And the US has demand by the carload.
You're missing the point, one should strive to avoid reaching the breaking point by being too greedy.
You're also ignoring the decades when they were heavily benefiting, and the US and others suffering.
Moreover, for a while both would be hurting as both countries would have to go through some restructuring, sure China would suffer more in this projected case.
Then there is the case that Hillary gets elected and China will keep benefiting while you'll keep suffering for 4-8 more years. Giving China more time to adapt their economy.
Seems to me your thinking is too static, sometimes having your economy hurting is still worth it in the long run if it allowed to to ride on huge trade surpluses for decades.
big picture...
>>72591838
Just like the UK
Japan quite clearly needs to open its doors to the third world. Never mind culture and heritage and all that bollox. Who the fuck is a samurai these days anyway?
>>72599696
>Comes at a cost, and this cost is higher domestic household debt and higher domestic unemployment,
Easy, just deal with the unemployment by expanding the government deficit to fill that demand gap.
>>72599783
Yeah you're right full employment sucks.
>>72599839
No, using those situations as a "gotcha!" response, even though they aren't remotely comparable, just reveals the person's ignorance.
>>72600169
>Easy, just deal with the unemployment by expanding the government deficit to fill that demand gap.
Politically difficult in the US today. Might be viable under Trump, if we're lucky.
>>72600089
You simply don't understand the Japanese mentality. Very few people in the world have a race-based worldview anymore. I would literally prefer to be dying of starvation in a homogenous country than open the door to invaders. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand why the Japanese will never allow that to happen (unless their elites fuck them from the top which is quite likely, seeing as how bad things have been coincidentally getting since Hirohito died).
>>72586236
Debt doesn't matter if nobody is going to come collect it.
>>72600384
The Japanese will build a robot army before they start importing shitskins.
Unlike the West, they are not suicidal.
>>72600305
It would be pretty funny if the most economically sensible (and in fact progressive) candidate turns out to be Trump. If he had a more reasonable environmental position than "climate change is a chinese hoax" I would be tempted to support him.
>Electing a nigger
Have you ever seen a great nigger nation in history?
>>72586967
Thx 4 this post.
I am now a Cruz missile
>>72592269
It's worse than "standing on the tracks out of principle." The left believes that they help the economy by INCREASING spending, ESPECIALLY in the aftermath of an economic recession. They still idolize FDR despite a lack of clear evidence that his massive spending actually helped matters, and they ignore cases like the Greek debt crisis.
>>72600996
The US' decline is directly linked to its white population.
1965 with its death sentence
PAY DEBT AMERICUNTS
Isn't FED subject to oversight by congress? Why are you blaming Obama?
>>72588396
Iran with negative debt xD
>>72586524
Accordint to the fact that the debt gets bigger is is both.
A deficit and a huge neckbreaking debt.
Enjoy your second economic Crash burgers
>>72586236
tell me about your debts japan
if you care about debt, you're basically an economic illiterate.
the important statistic is debt to gdp ratio. You can eternally be in debt or run a deficit and be perfectly fine. Given that inflation is higher than the interest we pay on our debt, we're benefiting immensely from having such a large debt.
Debt to gdp ratio has steadied out under obama as economic growth has resumed and the deficit has declined significantly. We're fine.
>>72601698
That's how an oil rich theocracy works, when zero fucks are given about the people.
>>72588877
If the Japanese households spent it instead of saving it, are you saying that would correct their government's deficit? If so, how?
>>72603055
I wouldn't say "correct" the deficit because there's nothing incorrect about a deficit. But, yes, if households spend a larger portion of their income than before then the deficit would shrink.
>>72604588
So you believe their saving behaviour isn't the only cause of the high Japanese government debt, only something that influences it?
>>72604742
Let me put it as clearly and simply as I can. A deficit is all that the government spends into the economy in a period minus all that it taxes back out. The only way it can arise is if at least one non-government entity spends less than its income. The high public debt in Japan is the result of large deficits over time.
>>72606281
>The only way it can arise is if at least one non-government entity spends less than its income
This is the part I'm having issues with. It implies all government spending is something that otherwise people or companies would have chosen to / needed to spend on. A government could build a bridge to nowhere, which is added to the deficit of that year, but the government paying for it doesn't save anyone the need to pay for it, because they didn't need/want it.
>>72607093
What I'm talking about is accounting identities that are true by definition. For every dollar that the government spends without taxing back, someone has received a dollar and not spent it.
Every dollar received from government spending will be spent again in the economy, or paid in tax, or saved (unspent). If it's spent again then it has the same three possibilities again.
All dollars the government spends will therefore either be saved or taxed. I'm not making a political statement here, just a simple point of fact.
>>72607549
Do these accounting identities say what has to happen for a balanced government budget to exist, and savings for households and companies?
>>72608590
I don't understand what you're asking here.
>>72608949
Is it possible, within the accounting identities you're talking about, for a state to exist where there's a balanced government budget, and moderate savings by households?
>>72588396
In peru we went through shit to understand that debts is no good
>>72609352
Yeah if the country runs a trade surplus then that's possible but it wouldn't last forever and not all countries can do it at the same time, obviously.
Governments running surpluses or zero-balance is rare.
>>72586236
What is the interest on that?
>>72598066
interest rates having no real theory behind it
>federeal reserve printing money
>constant population growth
>speculation
>offshores
>inflation
it's all fucking jewish ponzi scheme man
>>72612534
>tfw forgot a ">"
>>72588396
>>72588775
you ever wonder to whom they owe the money to?
