Calaban
shares
Daningo
says
The demand to continue the same (or increase) the trajectory of spending is really th point to me, not just how cheap we can get the money.
SvenRichard
says
a billion here, a billion there, soon you're talking real money! 
Daningo
says
I get 0% offers all the time, but know that the principal is the problem, not the rate
But Daningo you are not a national government. Debt does not work the same at the international level of state government as it does for the
individual or for the family. It is tempting to see a government as analogous to the individual or the family, but it isn't the same.
Debt is not just credit (say, credit to pay for social security), it is also investment. And unlike a family loan, the investment is not
simply in the interest return, for a government it is also about the "health" of a system. This health is determined by more than just
a government's ability to repay. It is also, for example, about the health of a government's educational system. Is it preparing for the
future by spending the necessary money to make future generations smart in the way they need to be.
Put differently, China's present and future investments in the US is not solely about getting paid back. It invests in the US because the
return is, in part, a continued income from interest and because it keeps the US a stable force in the world, which, right now, it needs.
US debt to GDP has been more or less stable since 1994. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi...
With a recent uptick in the last 7 years due to tax cuts and the recession. A link that FFiend shared recently illustrates the relative
impact of the various reasons for the recent increase, and it is not due to extraordinary spending.
Put differently, debt matters but what matters more is the economy and the faith that investors have in the economy. The two are not linked
in the same way as they are for a family, precisely because, unlike a family, there is no termination moment provided national production
leads to returns (both financial and in global stability) that the investors desire.
The debate that I think we need to have in the US is not, "is the debt to high," but, instead, "what sorts of spending promote growth and
what doesn't"? That's a much harder, but more useful debate, I think.
SvenRichard
says
the hard thing of course, as the EU is finding out, is that there is a level of spending that is unsustainable. Greece, Spain, Italy,
SvenRichard
says
they are all perilously close to that number...
Yes, SvenRichard, I agree that Greece,Spain,Italy are close to that number. But the legitimate question is why? Is it their spending?
I don't think so. It is their spending in ratio to their productivity. The two can't be separated.
At least that's why I think, anyway. In Greece, Spain, and Italy's case, their productivity has (never?) rarely been sufficiently high for
the spending that they incurred. That's not, again as I read the numbers, the situation in the US now or in the past.
In addition, Greece, Spain, and Italy are out of options when it comes to additional revenue sources. That, too, is not the case in the US.
Just going back to 1994 tax levels would drastically alter the debt problem. Getting the costs of health care under control would go further
as well.
Cutting spending is not the only opinion to address the issue, and the issue does not have to be the crisis that it has become.
Daningo
says
How would you describe the interrelationship between gov't spending and requests for revenue? A Vanity Fair article documented the mass tax
SvenRichard
says
my concern of course is that going back to 1994 tax levels wouldn't do anything to alter the spending that is sought by many
Daningo
says
evasion that is common in Greece - aerial photos showed hundreds of pools that were not reported - and thus not taxed
SvenRichard
says
(on both sides) in Congress. They seem to be perpetually drunken sailors out on a bender and we know that centralized govt. spending is not
SvenRichard
says
on both sides in congress. They seem to be spending like drunken sailors, with only the rare individual stopping the binge
SvenRichard
says
centralized govt. spending is not the most efficient way to - to what I have to ask myself... why is it tha we are spending all this money?
SvenRichard
says
education - sure it's a drop in the bucket compared to the entitlements...
SvenRichard
says
infrastructure - roads, bridges, etc - once a gain a drop in the bucket
It is no secret where the increased spending has come from. It is the continuation of long-term policies: Social Security, Medicaid,
Medicare, and Defense.
There has been no huge expansion of any of these programs, beyond the Bush extension in, if I remember correctly, drugs and for Obama in the
health care proposal. Still, neither of these two changes can compare to the biggest contributors to spending increases: the recession.
and the two wars and the recent actions in Libya.
It would be nice if cutting spending included at least a conversation about defense spending and war, which it really didn't until the final
grand compromise. But let's set that aside, for a moment. The social security, medicaid, and medicare programs are our biggest
SvenRichard
says
I've heard people argue that the TARP was actually probably effective in staving off a Depression vs. this deep recession
expenses and among the biggest increases, yet these are not new programs. They aren't, to use my friend's Sven's words, "drunken binges."
SvenRichard
says
the second "stimulus" was pretty bad, with something like $240k per "job" created
SvenRichard
says
that is part of the problem - it isn't supposed to be the govt's job to create jobs
We can argue about whether they are good or bad investments, but they weren't new.
But Sven, I disagree. It has always been the government's job to create jobs.
It created jobs in at the birth of the republic by financing the buildings of canals.
It created jobs by essentially giving away land in the west, especially to railroads.
SvenRichard
says
it is however in their best interest to promote the growth of the economy. If the economy grew, we wouldn't need to go back to 1994 tax
It provided jobs by creating international deals for businesses.
SvenRichard
says
levels to grow our way out of the current "debt crisis"
Truly, the government has always been in the jobs business.
To your point a couple up: maybe if the economy grew we wouldn't need to go back to 1994 tax rates . . .
SvenRichard
says
it created jobs getting into WWII as well 
Sure, you have a good point, but that still begs the question of how the economy grows.
There is a fundamental disagreement about this fact, and it is rarely discussed honestly.
The government grows when there is a partnership of government AND private investment.
ooops., I meant the economy grows.
It doesn't necessarily grow when spending is cut, because that takes money out of the economy that would normally be there.
SvenRichard
says
but would that money have been there if we left it in the citizen's hands?
No, it wouldn't.
There is a lot of data to suggest that the economy benefits when consumers spend, but that the relative difference in tax rates does not
SvenRichard
says
because we can print money, we assume that the govt adding more money into the economy - but all it does is devalue the money we have
result in an equal benefit to the economy.
SvenRichard
says
I don't get a raise when the dollar falls against every currency in the world...
SvenRichard
says
now - you can argue that a weak dollar is a good thing
No, you don't. but you do get chapter goods.
SvenRichard
says
for manufacturing and
cheaper.
In addition, our debt burden is much less when the dollar gets weaker.
I read recently that America never paid back its WWII debt, especially to international parties.
We just "waited it out," until the relative price of one currency against another made the debt so small, it didn't matter and was
basically written off.
That's the sort of thing that makes a government's debt very different from a person's debt, and why the logics of debt to financial
health are so hard to track.
SvenRichard
says
I think Mr. Jrugman mantioned that in his piece
SvenRichard
says
Krugman
right.
Krugman. He is a liberal policy guy, no doubt.
Many disagree with his policy conclusion, including Obama's team, but to my knowledge he always uses real numbers.
I guess that's part of the whole Nobel Prize mystique or something. 
SvenRichard
says
SvenRichard
says
Personally - what scares me is the rate of increase we have seen recently. I get you that we can outlast the debt - It would just be nice
Anyway, my point is simply this: Revenue has decreased and spending has increased.
FFiend
says
So the Tea Party's naif grasp of global macroeconomics is leading them to inflammatory tactics causing Experienced Policymakers to suffer?
SvenRichard
says
to see some sense of fiscal acumen from Congress. Unfortunately we keep electing professional politicians instead of business people.
Revenue decreased due to tax breaks and due to an additional, unforeseen, recession that resulted in a drop in existing tax revenue.
Spending has increased due to the impact of the recession, especially in the areas of jobs (unemployment claims) and Medicare/medicaid costs
as more people take advantage of those programs.
In the long term, next 15 years, social security spending will also increase because of population shifts.
SvenRichard
says
yep
So, while I appreciate that Sven might disagree on this point, the recent increases in spending are not the result of new programs or, even,
bad political decisions.
SvenRichard
says
I have no idea what you just said FFiend
To the extent that it is the result of bad political decisions, the data demonstrates (without to much room for disagreement) that the
biggest impact political decisions on debt front have been war and tax cuts.
You can argue that both were necessarily, and that they are not political decisions, per se.
But regardless, they have had the largest impact thus far. More impact than the stimulus. The rest, it could be argued, has been "bad luck,"
if you're willing to argue that the home mortgage crisis, which led to the financial crisis, which led to the recession was just a bad luck
situation.
SvenRichard
says
one does have to wonder - since they downgraded us anyway - what would have happened if they hadn't done the debt "deal" - I suppose
SvenRichard
says
the downgrade would have been across the board
SvenRichard
says
and much more dramatic
Yes, I think so. All 3 rating boards would have downgraded, and the stock market drop would have been more than the 5+% it was today.
Right now the markets are just trying to hedge their bets and protect some assets.
If the default would have actually transpired, it wouldn't have been about protecting assets and hedging medium-term bets.
It would have been a wholesale departure from the marketplace.
The sell off will continue a while yet, but unless there is more bad news (which their could be in interest rates or employment #) I think
things will stabilize.
Of course, I'm only managing my own investments and I don't do this for a living.
SvenRichard
says
I actually thought about selling everything 2 weeks ago. Just buying gold and hunkering down
SvenRichard
says
but I could never time a market and it would have gone up or something...
I, too, thought about moving some stuff around 2 weeks ago. But I only recently moved stuff in (given the move and everything) and the cost
of the second movement wouldn't have helped the bottom line.
FFiend
says
My point was that the "debt hysteria" was inflamed by newbie Tea Party Republicans who failed to understand the consequences of their action
FFiend
says
The so-called gains are meaningless in the greater picture and only served to undermine the economy that the TP got elected to "protect/fix"
FFiend
says
The TP is attempting to implement rash solutions to placate an impatient frustrated populace & taking the Republican party off the rails.
FFiend
says
National Debt is a 25-100 year goal, not a 4-6 year agenda item. The TP promised results that no one can deliver and they refuse to recant.
FFiend
says
There are enough TP newbies, that senior leadership cannot generate enough political will to accomplish the party platform.
FFiend
says
They have to steer further extreme right to get the support they need to protect their other pet issues.
FFiend
says
I feel like the Tea Party is really a 3rd Party that hitched a ride into the dominant 2-party system and Trojaned the political process.
FFiend
says
Thte Republicans are at the losing end of the numbers, so they trying to create a coalition to co-opt the TP back into their fold.
FFiend
says
And they are losing their identity in the process. It's not the compromise with the Dems thats the problem, it's this internal compromise.
FFiend
says
The TP influence could be nerfed if a majority of Republicans offered less radical legislation that would had more Democrat appeal.
Daningo
says
If a 25-100 year goal is not addressed in the 4-6 year agenda, it will never happen- what would you cut if you were in charge?
Daningo
says
I'd be fine with increased taxes if they were across the board - everybody pays in something noone gets a check if they didn't pay any taxes
FFiend
says
I don't think cuts can happen in big-ticket areas. The Baby Boomer demographic is too great a burden and infrastructure costs are too much.
FFiend
says
the best you can do is trim pork and collect more revenue and wait.
Daningo
says
Every pig will resist being trimmed and declare that his bacon should be saved
What I think is interesting, and being discussed widely, is that the sell-off on the market led to significant gains for US treasury bonds.
Despite the debt, investors feel that the US government is a better investment than either the open market or many individual corporations.
steveking
says
135 responses, awesome!
Daningo
shares
Daningo
shares
The essay does has some interesting ideas. Some I would support and some I would not.
One of the big questions, though, is the assumption of the essay that there are "no opportunities." I think this is true and false.
I've argued elsewhere, and the data seems to demonstrate, that many companies have made a significant profit the past 2 years.
What they haven't done is hire. They have found a way to live with current labor and augment with temp or contract work.
Part of what we need is to incentivize companies to hire and not only take profit or use that profit for acquisitions, which often lead to
additional layoffs. Now, whether or not the profits will continue is an open question. It is possible that at this point even the companies
that were doing well are going to start to suffer.
Daningo
says
I can only judge from the weekly corporate emails telling me my co is looking for more people and the numbers of new hires we are seeing
Daningo
says
I see a lot of hiring going on here
That's great. I hope that more companies do the same.
SvenRichard
says
we are having a tough time finding qualified candidates for some roles... they have to be out there, unfortunately, oftentimes
SvenRichard
says
those that are unemployed are sometimes seen as less desirable hires
LSJ
says
If companies are hiring, then why is the unemployment rate holding?? Yes, the latest "jobs report" showed 100,000+ jobs created...
LSJ
says
but, my question is...is anyone really hiring? I think that (and I'm not directly pointing at Daningo's corporate e-mails) many of the big
LSJ
says
corps like to blow some sunshine up...just so employees can feel that warm/fuzzy of ..."at least my company is doing their part...".
LSJ
says
I'm just not hearing/seeing the BIG evidence that there is some serious hiring/job creation going on.
LSJ
says
Front page/headline in Star Tribune....The Economy Needs....You! Well, for the unemployed...no can do.
Daningo
says
calaban, are you taking two generalized observations - profits for some prominent companies are still strong and unemployment is high
Daningo
says
and conflating them? Our profits are strong, but we keep hiring which would specifically deny the theory
I'm saying that the data suggests that your company is the exception not the rule. Unemployment remains relatively high.
Two general observations from that fact, given the generally robust profits that many companies (those traded on the stock market) have
experienced over the last two years. Either 1) These companies are not rehiring employees in the same numbers that they had prior to 2008.
A natural thing to do if the company wants to use that profit for something else than hiring OR 2) Additional companies are shedding jobs
even as the profitable companies are hiring workers. To my knowledge, the "new jobs lost" is not coming from the private sector but from the
public sector. There has been, already, a tightening of government/federal spending, which has led to job loss in some areas. (thus the call
among liberal economics for new stimulus). If this is correct, even to some degree, then the profitable companies have not hired back.
Take, for example, the auto industry. It is not perfect at present, but after the bailout it did well enough to payback the bailout and
still post significant profits. The anecdotal evidence of my family who lives in Michigan, however, is that the car companies have not
hired back labor that they shed in the restructuring, despite significant profits in 2010 and early 2011.
I would need hard data to stand by this anecdotal evidence, but the general narrative seems consistent and persuasive.
It explains, for example, why some communities are rebounding well (post-recession), while other communities are not.
In some communities companies are using profits to rehire, while in other communities profitable companies are using those funds for
different purposes. I suspect that this difference is not merely about the whims of CEOs. It is probably influenced by the type of labor
needed--skilled, unskilled, advanced degree, etc.--and the sector of the economy involves--manufacturing, service, financial, etc.
SvenRichard
says
It would be interesting to see the numbers on private vs. public employment.I wonder if the govt. numbers include Minnesota state workers?
SvenRichard
says
that were laid off - would they have really applied for unemployment?
I assume that they would have applied for unemployment if they could. The "average" Minnesota state worker isn't likely to be making enough
money to have banked enough to be self-sufficient now, I wouldn't think. Just a guess, of course, but my bet is that they would have applied
for unemployment at the first opportunity, provided they were eligible.
I don't necessairly trust USA Today for financial data, but this article was easy to find. www.usatoday.com/money/w...
It would be worth it to track where their data comes from. The general narrative of the article does coincide, does support, longer essays
that I've read so far this year, especially this past Spring when it looked like the economy had finally reach recovery territory.
Although the USA Today articles doesn't make the connection very well, I think that the "merger" talk at the end of the essay reveals what
many larger companies have done with their profits. Rather than rehire, they have used their newly acquired efficiency to leverage their
profits into mergers. Again, this is very good for their stock, which goes up even more, but not so great for the economy, since it doesn't
help job growth.
Again, better data is necessary to understand the "jobs overseas" hiring, but that is certainly a legitimate fear. (Although I can't say for
certain that the fear is realized and an impact on current jobless numbers). Is is one reason why liberal economists don't necessarily
believe that a lowered tax burden automatically helps the US economy. Large corporations and even many mid-sized corporations can take
additional profits and 'spend' them overseas.
At least in the manufacturing center, labor costs will, for the foreseeable future, be cheaper overseas.
Oh, one final thought. Another issue in job loss and job rehiring is the relative age of those who lost jobs. I suspect, but would to
research, that many who lost jobs in 2008 and early 2009 were in their late 40s and 50s. These workers simply are not as attractive to those
companies that are hiring at this point. I've heard some economists worry that an entire generation of folks will never re-enter the work-
force at the same salary level that they left it, because the jobs they left are not only gone, they are going to be occupied by younger
workers who are less expensive.
SvenRichard
says
whew - I thought you were talking about me...