milkchaser

The Economic Trifecta: Inflation, Devaluation, High Interest

Carlos Lam -- agree with most of your plan except for halving he military. They are there for a good reason, the expense is necessary. Allowing failures to fail is painful, but distributing the pain across the entire American economy (if not the globe) is worse.


On May 31 10:39 PM Carlos Lam wrote:

> On May 31 11:22 AM thotdoc wrote:

The Economic Trifecta: Inflation, Devaluation, High Interest

Is this a prediction or real numbers? If so, what is the time period? Time to go with EEM, I suppose.


On May 30 06:38 PM Donald Ingram wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> World stock markets (BRIC countries) versus S&P 500
> Russia up 72.1%
> India up 51.6%
> China up 44.6%
> Brazil up 39.7%
> S&P 500 up 0.22%
>
> Nuff said.
> On May 30 03:35 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

Obama Says We're Out of Money

I think we can agree with Obama's analysis since it is the conventional wisdom and, as far as long-term entitlements, has been the conventional wisdom for decades (G.W.Bush ran on the issue of SS reform in the late 70s in a failed bid for Congress, and he unsuccessfully championed the idea of reform four years ago). Obama's analysis is not exactly at the intellectual vanguard.

So Obama's analysis is correct, but not necessarily astute. Where he is astute is in exploiting the anxieties created by these issues. What is troublesome is that, when faced with a gargantuan debt problem, he quadrupled down. It is the most fiscally irresponsible act since FDR made gold ownership illegal.

If Americans are suffering such a dearth of health care, then why are typical Americans so healthy? Why are death rates from cancer and heart disease, and other killers of Americans, declining? Even if these good health outcomes are due to something other than sufficient access to health care, then access to health care is not as important as claimed. OTOH, if access is essential, then the good outcomes demonstrate that people are typically getting enough of it.

Besides which, the problem for most people is not that they cannot get health care. That is a problem for very few people. The problem (if it is one) is that health care is more expensive than people would like. Guess what? Gasoline is more expensive than people like. Food is more expensive. Health care is not prohibitively expensive for most people (although it is for an unfortunate few, and some of those are not covered by Medicaid, which is awful). Americans like to moan about the high cost of medical care, but typically they are getting a very good product for that cost.

Regardless of one's perspective on the cost, this should not be distorted into an untruth that people cannot get health care, since most can. They can even usually get health care insurance (not the same thing as health care itself) if they are willing to forgo other things and bear the financial pain. Bad health can cause financial ruin. That is sad, but so are fatal car accidents. Stuff happens.

It is unfortunate that some politicians are using the anxiety over this issue to seize control of the health care industry.

I also challenge the notion that Americans are getting "less (sic) educational opportunities". The number of children in school has increased monotonically. The number of people in higher education has increased monotonically. The cost is higher, but that simply determines which school one gets into and perhaps the quality of the education. It might also force people to forgo expensive liberal arts education, but is such an education necessary and worthwhile? Also, not everybody who is qualified to be a doctor gets to be a doctor. It has ever been thus. It ever shall be. Life is not fair.

Again, it is unfortunate that some politicians have exploited anxiety over this issue in order to solidify their power and secure the devotion of teacher unions. The result is more tax money sent to schools -- it's a shame if all that extra money is not getting the job done. Makes me wonder if the money is well spent, or if the problems with education are not only or even primarily a lack of funding.

We do agree however that the American standard of living will decline if the currency is debased. That, however, is not an inevitability. There are elections in 2010. There are protest rallies in the streets. There will be hundreds of thousands of people in DC on September 12 protesting the current expansion of Federal power and debt. This is as unprecedented as Obama's deficits.

On May 28 11:05 AM Larrysyr wrote:

> Obama has analyzed the situation correctly in that there is an immediate
> fiancial/economic crisis to deal with AND a long-term structural
> mess with Medicare, Social Security, and infrastructure deterioration,
> among other forces.
>
> He's chosen the path of trying to jump-start the economy, which should
> provide some of the resources to address the longer-term problems.
>
>
> This strategy may not work, though I'm not sure there are any more
> appealing choices. In fact, our political and economic systems have
> demonstrated precious little appetite for long-term, productive investments.
> I expect the likeliest outcome will be for the USA to inflate its
> way out of its debt obligations and for the real average standard
> of living to decline. Less access to quality health care, more stress
> on families trying to keep their homes, less educational opportunities
> for people of moderate means, more expensive staples like food and
> clothing. Sounds like what we've been experiencing for decades.

Pres. Obama: Counterfeiter-in-Chief?

The cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the "stimulus package" are comparable. But the stimulus package will be spent in less time. The war in Iraq arguably enhanced national security. The stimulus package was predominately a payoff to various Democratic constituencies. I doubt that either the war or excessive Federal gov't spending will result in economic growth, but at least the war accomplished something: it's hard to argue that the world would be safer if Saddam were still above ground and breathing.

Besides which, Bush is gone. It's all on Obama now.


On Mar 26 10:59 AM Chris B wrote:

> And not a word about Bush? He increased the national debt by several
> trillion dollars during his term, but when BO increases it by maybe
> 1-2 trillion (by buying distressed assets that will probably be sold
> for a profit later vs. throwing money down the hole in Iraq/Afghanistan)
> it's the end of the world. Sounds like a twinge of political bias
> to me.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

I agree with you, but really -- gays are in the military. Klinton was right to have supported them. That is the one thing he did right. There are many gays who died in combat and many more who served honorably. Better than I've done. I had dinner with a gay man who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He's a better man than I. My first beef with Klinton (after stupidly voting for him) was that he abandoned gay military servicemen.

BTW, I spell his name incorrectly as an overt sign of disrespect.

Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.


On Feb 24 08:21 PM Steve M wrote:

> "Progressive indexation of benefits" = no (or reduced) Social Security
> if you have other income, wealth, etc.
>
> Yes, it breaks the idea of SS being a benefits program rather than
> a welfare program.
>
> If Obama thinks he can take on the AARP on this - who WILL fight
> this - more power to him.
>
> As an aside, if he does do this, and takes on agribusiness, then
> IMHO he's feeling way too cocky. Reminds me of Clinton when he was
> first elected and tried to take on gays in the military, national
> health care, and gun control, and ended up squandering political
> capital on battles he either had little hope of winning or on pissing
> off too many groups. Obama would be wise to avoid this common trap.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

The housing meltdown came to fruition after 2006 when Democrats were in charge, but the groundwork for it was done (by Democrats) when they were in the minority. They obstructed reform of the GSEs and they pushed CRA. They "lit the match" as McCain said in debate.


On Feb 24 05:03 PM Larrysyr wrote:

>
> I'm just curious which time period you're referring to.
>
> Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican party from
> 1995 until 2007, except for the Senate in 2001/2002.
>
> On Feb 24 11:48 AM Evaluator wrote:

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

We can respect him and still disagree with him and fear that his very socialistic approach is going to lead to disaster. I respect the intelligence of my left-wing friends, I just think they are wrong and misguided. And just because I think Obama is misguided does not mean that I do not respect the power foolishly given to him by my fellow Americans. Time will tell if my fears are proven valid. I hope they are not, but in the mean time, we dread the outcome.


On Feb 24 04:26 PM P. K. wrote:

> It goes to show how much close attention is paid when one only spews
> from one direction; he is the President; has been for 34 days now.
> Perhaps you can give the office the respect it is due in your tirade.
>
>
> I found reason to support Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford
> and even Nixon and LBJ. I also found reason to disagree with them,
> but I always chose to respect them for the office they hold and the
> complexity of the job. Obama deserves no less from any of us.<br/>

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

I should check my own spelling before publishing.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

It's hard to persuade people who disagree with them when you start off calling them "nut-jobs". Name-calling is not a substitute for an argument. NITRAM's "argument", as such, is weak and and his facts are as questionable as his spelling, but at least he is offering his opinion and not just ridicule. I share his skepticism of Obama, though not his reasoning.

It's hard to have faith that Obama really means to cut the deficit when he has just dug a big hole to twice the original depth. It's hard to forgive that.

The author rightly criticizes previous administrations for budget gimmicks. Such gimmicks have a long, bi-partisan history. W did not invent them. He praises Obama for pulling back the curtain on W's gimmickry, but let's Obama have a pass on the feebleness of his own gimmickry: namely, that Obama promises only to halve Bush's deficit, but wants us to ignore his contribution.

If we were ten feet down when Obama took over and he digs us (at least) ten feet deeper, then he fills in five feet, that still leaves us fifteen feet under. That's not progress. We can't say Bush's deficit was bad, but Obama's was good. There's no morality to deficits. Numbers are numbers.

I laud the goal of reducing farm subsidies. I'll believe it when I see it.

Withdrawing from Iraq may save money, but if it reignites, it will prove to be foolish and expensive. The so-called stimulus bill, a collection of pork projects with dubious stimulative value, spends more money than the cost of the Iraq War and in less time. Leaving Iraq may make sense, especially now that the country is much more stable, but it is unseemly to boast about the money is saves.

PAYGO always seems to me to be a gimmick to justify raising taxes. Congress puts on imaginary handcuffs, then claims to have no choice when they start taking more of our money. But, of course they have a choice. They can cut spending. Republican or Democrat, that option never seems to appear.

Reverting the tax rates to pre-Bush levels on very high earners will not raise a significant amount of revenue. There are not many earners making above $250 million. This sounds like a stalking horse for raising taxes on earners making over $250 thousand. Such a tax rate hike would probably worsen the recession. It is a very Hoover-like approach.

The "Greenhouse Gas" scam is a tax plain and simple -- a pervasive and destructive tax. The Greenhouse Gas problem is invisible and illusory, but when it is used to scare people into accepting pervasive taxes, it is scandalous.

My hat's off to Obama if he can solve the entitlement problem. If he does so without comopletely wrecking the economy, I just might vote for him. I'm not holding my breath.