• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Economy

>Canada will get sideswiped when, not if the US cannot manage its own debts. Many, almost certainly most of you - Army.ca readers, will pay part of the price through higher prices and reduced exports which will mean lower tax revenues which will mean fewer public 'services.'

Yep.  It's our own durn fault though, for spending our way into such a large accumulated deficit (debt) and insisting on spending as if peak (bubble) revenues were the norm.  I'm looking forward to a normalization; hopefully the future is now and we will come to grips with our own imbalances and stop punting our problems into tomorrow.
 
>1. Raise the debt ceiling

In itself, it is neither stupid nor irresponsible.  The debt ceiling in the US is just a (helpful) mechanism which forcibly presents opportunities for periodic reviews of the public finances before the "bond vigilantes" unexpectedly and suddenly blindside the next Treasury auction and everything comes to a halt much more quickly than a government can ever hope to respond.  Stupidity and irresponsibility only enter during the prioritization of payments.  A rating downgrade due to abrogation of commitments other than public debt is not equivalent to a default on debt.  A rating downgrade will widely increase the cost of borrowing.  That increased cost will further worsen the US net balance.  It will also squeeze the economy.  There will be less spending.  That will mean less economic activity, thus less tax revenues, thus further squeezing the revenue side.  It hastens the day of reckoning, at which the cost of borrowing ceases to be practical and the statists must decide which programs they want to save and which must be sacrificed.  If they were smart, they would be hammering at the TP's door to give away whatever is necessary to preserve as much of their welfare state as possible.  The longer they delay and try to rope off the big entitlement programs, the larger the debt will grow and the fewer will be the programs which can be saved.  Conditions emphatically favour the people who refuse to pay any more.

It is smart to do the hard things while they are still easy.  It won't be as easy as it would have been 2 or 5 or 15 or 50 years ago, but it will be a lot easier now than it will be in a few more months or years. So, get on with it.

>The reasons that simple plan isn't on the table is that:

... the Democrats are convinced that somehow, someone can be made to pay for everything they've promised to fund.  They don't understand that, in fact, the time has come to choose what will be retained and what will be eliminated from program spending, and that to delay is only to lose more.

The TP members are not "monumentally stupid", that description belongs solely to the people who passed into law entitlements that can't be paid and the people who could read the balance sheet but loaned the money to the government anyways.

>putting self interest ahead of the national interest.

That's an interesting proposition: that the "national interest" is to go along with whatever poor decisions are made by others.  Their greed and lack of foresight is not the TP's problem.  The end game was always predictable and predicted.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Fair comment, DBA, if a bit pointless.

You're right I am critical of US politicians and, to be fair, our own, too.

The potential impact of a US default puts all the political aspirations of Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers in the shade.

Now, the 'answers' to the US dilemma are quite simple:

1. Raise the debt ceiling – failure to do so will be an act of stupid, venal, political irresponsibility;
2. Cut spending – that is the root of the problem; and
3. Consider raising some revenue, too – to avoid politically painful cuts (have you seen the AARP advertisements?) and, symbolically, to 'punish' the rich and corporations. An 8:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue gains is about right – cut $6.4 Trillion in spending (over ten years) and the executive can close $800 Billion in tax loopholes, but insist that $2 Trillion in cuts are made in the 2012 budget.

That's my plan, but it is, essentially, what has been proposed, over and over again, by Democrats, Independents and Republicans, in the USA over the past year.

The reasons that simple plan isn't on the table is that:

1. Some (at least two that I have read/heard about, and I said “some,” originally) Tea Party members are persuaded that a default is better than anything proposed, thus far, by Obama and/or Boehner. I remain very comfortable with my assertion that some Tea Party members are monumentally stupid.

2. Some, actually, it appears, many, maybe even most, Democrats would rather face default than visit the entitlements issue. I am comfortable considering that to be irresponsible – putting partisan political advantage ahead of the good of the country. So I remain comfortable with calling most Democrats irresponsible, too.

3. Some form of my 'plan' above could have been and should have been in place in May of this year. It is not because Obama and Boehner, mainly, are jockeying for political advantage in 2012. Now, that's fair enough – it is politics, after all. But, we have been told by both men, they got close to a deal that had all three components (raise the debt ceiling, cut spending, close some tax loopholes to raise revenue) but it failed because Boehner cannot bring his Tea Party members (some of whom are monumentally stupid, in my opinion) on side. He doesn't need them in order to do what's right but he, and others in the Republican leadership, are afraid of what Mark Williams, Sarah Palin et al might do to them if they abandon the Tea Party and embrace some Democrats. To me that shows a lack of courage: putting self interest ahead of the national interest. Thus, I am also comfortable in saying that there are too many cowards in the Republican Party.

So, of course, faults (and strengths) are evenly distributed across any significant segment of humankind but in this particular political case three faults – monumental stupidity, irresponsibility and cowardice – are, visibly, getting in the way of doing the right thing.

But, thanks for your observations.

Looks like you missed my point entirely as all you did was expand on the name calling and insults to any who doesn't agree with you while providing nothing to back up why your view is the correct one. Hint: If intelligence is distributed evenly then that means the Tea Party movement contains the same proportion of smart people as any other group. 

Maybe one day debate will be more along the lines of:
My position is X, the reasons are A, B and C. The other position Y is inferior because of D, E and F. Response in kind.
Instead of:
The correct position is X, which will result in Y if followed and Z if not followed. Stupid people can't see that Z will be a disaster, cowards won't do X and the evil people want Z to happen. All of us who believe in X is so smart and virtuous that we deserve a cookie. Followed by wondering why the other side isn't listening and nothing is being accomplished.

The Republican and Tea Party influenced Congress passed an agreement avoiding default. The Democrat controlled Senate voted it down.
 
To DBA, I can not acertain the motive or the objective of your comments to ERC. In my opinion it seems like more of a 'hit and run sideswipe' to me.

Are you attempting to impose your method of debate or a presentation of one's opinion on another individual?
 
GE moving X-ray business to China

In 832 the move of the Bones of St Mark from Alexandria to Venice marked the rise of Venice as a major power in the Mediterranean.


In 654 Muslims disconnected Alexandria from the Byzantine empire.  The Christians were allowed to continue trading as long as they paid their taxes.

By 725 the taxes had been jacked to such an extent that the Christians revolted.  They revolted again in 739 and 750.  In 750 the Ummayyad Muslims were deposed by the Abbasid Muslims of Baghdad.

The Abbasids were absentee governors who jacked the taxes yet again prompting both the Egyptian Christians and the Egyptian Muslims to Revolt in 828 and 831.

In 832 the money ran to safety in Venice......

Denouement - Abbasids send Turkish slaves to Egypt to reestablish Abbasid authority.  Strangely the Turks set themselves up as Governors in their own right and had to be deposed by force.......but never went away.
 
DBA said:
Looks like you missed my point entirely ...


You are correct, DBA, I missed your point and, in the cool light of morning, I'm still missing it.

I get that you don't like my harsh, judgemental tone; I get that you think that I think I know all the answers; and I get that you object to both my attitude and self assurance. Fair enough. You remember, I'm sure, the old adage about opinions and anuses ... so I'm guessing that isn't your point.

I agreed with you that strengths and faults are pretty evenly distributed amongst the human population, but I continue to assert that that a very small (a few hundred) segment of that population, the US administration and the Congress - which operates in a very special way and has very great responsibilities, has failed in its responsibilities for reasons I will not repeat. But that cannot be your point because I agreed with it.

Now you, like Brad Sallows, might suggest, à la Cassius to Brutus, that “the fault  is ... in ourselves” or, at least, in the broad American electorate, but I find that too easy because, eventually, everything – except the weather – eventually reduces to our personal choices.

So, I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree on the substance and tone of my pronouncements ... because I still don't get your point.
 
Reports that the US will, no matter what, lose its Tripe A credit rating are increasing in frequency and volume. The forthcoming (later today) grilling of the heads of the major bond rating agencies by the US Congress should be interesting.

The deficit stands, currently, at about $1.6 Trillion. That is a HUGE number for anyone except the USA. There is no reason why the budget cannot be 'balanced' in a very short time without any revenue increases. The US debt of nearly $15 Trillion will be harder to clear but a debt of, say, 25-35% of GDP (currently also about $15 Trillion) is quite manageable so the US is looking, within say, ten years, at reducing it's debt - i.e. running budget surpluses - by 'only' $10 Trillion.

Let's say a balanced budget by 2015 and then surpluses (totaling $10+ Trillion) by 2022. That is achievable with some spending cuts that need not 'gut' Medicare or Social Security or the Pentagon.

All it requires is some political will.

But if, as I expect they will, S&P, Moodies and Fitch do lower the US credit rating by one notch (from prime (AAA) to High Grade (to AA+)) then the costs of getting the deficit and debt under control will be greater.
 
What if they shot across the US bow with a one year reduction in rating, and raise it up again....depending...that might get the message across......(not likely though.....)
 
GAP said:
What if they shot across the US bow with a one year reduction in rating, and raise it up again....depending...that might get the message across......(not likely though.....)


That's what I think they should and (likely) will do: their responsibility is to tell prospective bond buyers how good, or not so good, a risk each country and corporation might be. When, as I think they must and will, the Americans get a grip on their budget then their rating should go back up again. In one year? Maybe. In two or three? Almost certainly.
 
I heard part of Devan Sharma's remarks in the US Congress today. It seems to me that he indicated that default, à la Argentina in 2002, is highly unlikely but, given the size and growth of the US debt and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the administration and the congress to take remedial action, a credit rating cut is inevitable.
 
Shrinking government is not a great idea for the US right now.Later when they are back on their feet again I agree. They get horrible value for their money. They pay only 2% less in total taxes by GDP compared to Canadians and get significantly fewer services(health care, tuition, social safety net, etc). There is obviously some room for improvement.

All the government cuts have thrown their economy into negative growth for over three years now. That's depression territory. It's why the job numbers keep getting worse. Government jobs and increasing unemployment benefits saves jobs and provides a safe form of stimulus when economies falter. The money paid to them goes directly back into the economy. The American economy is too weak for harsh medicine right now. Most economists are in agreement on this. This political theatre is really a self fulfilling prophecy that only sees the US economy get worse. Rather self serving to destroy a country to win an election.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/07/americas-economy
Distress signal

Jul 29th 2011, 13:58 by R.A. | WASHINGTON



IN 2007, the great ship of the American economy began encountering darkening skies. In 2008, it was suddenly faced with a violent storm which blew it miles off course, well south of where it ought to have been. The country's leaders didn't know how far from their charted path they'd been swept, but they recognised a need to make a course correction. Now, three years later, a look at the maps tells us that the storm was more powerful than previously believed, and it left the vessel much farther south than anyone had expected. The course corrections made earlier? Far too small to bring the ship back to its previous path. Yet none of America's leaders are trying to steer the ship back northward. Indeed, many seem anxious to yank on the tiller and drag the economy farther south still.

It has long been clear that America's recovery sagged worrisomely in the first half of 2011. This morning's  second-quarter GDP report reveals, however, that despite concern, most observers were too optimistic in their assessment of the economy's strength. Even more distressing, a series of revisions to past figures reveals a recession that was substantially worse than previously understood, which has left America in a bigger hole than imagined.

America's economy expanded at a 1.3% annual pace in the period from April to June of 2011. That was less than economists expected. Personal consumption growth slowed dramatically behind a drop in purchases of durable consumer goods, largely attributable to higher automobile prices associated with supply disruptions in the wake of the Japanese earthquake. Investment growth continued at a moderate pace. Businesses kept spending on new equipment, and residential investment was a small but positive contributor to output—a rare occurence in recent years. Net exports added slightly to growth, thanks mostly to a big drop in imports. But adding to the weight of the decline in consumer spending was the drag from cuts to government spending and investment.

As disappointing as the second quarter figures are, they're substantially better than the numbers for the first quarter. The Bureau of Economic Analysis initially pegged first-quarter growth at 1.9%, only to revise that figure down to 0.4% growth in the new release. Government represented a significant drag in the first quarter, chopping 1.23 percentage points off of growth, 0.41 precentage points of which were due to state and local cuts, and 0.74 percentage points of which can be chalked up to declining defence spending. Indeed, the new report reveals the extent to which government has been an obstacle to recovery. In five of the last seven quarters, government has contributed negatively to growth, again thanks mostly to large state- and local-government cuts that offset the federal government's modest attempts at stimulus.

The picture grows bleaker the farther back one looks. BEA revised its national accounts numbers back to 2007 for this release, and the picture revealed is far darker than anyone previously believed. From 2007 to 2010, real output declined by 0.3% per year on average. Previously, BEA had estimated annual growth of 0.1% over that period. The decline in output during the intense period of financial crisis was significantly more severe than economists had thought. In 2008, the economy shrank 0.3%, rather than holding flat, as earlier estimated. In 2009, the economy shrank 3.5%, worse than the earlier 2.6% projection. During the ugliest months of the crisis, in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, output declined at a shocking 8.9% and 6.7% annual pace, respectively. It is now clear that the American economy has yet to reattain its previous peak in real output, achieved three full years ago.

If nothing else, this awful report helps to solve a number of lingering mysteries concerning the crisis. Arguments that unemployment must be structural, given the failure of projected growth rates to generate new hiring, now look silly. Projected growth rates were simply overstated, and current unemployment is exactly what we'd expect given such a feeble recovery. Those overly optimistic assessments of the likely impact of interventions, from fiscal stimulus to QE, also make much more sense now. Policymakers were fighting a fire far more intense than they recognised.

Of course, the previous underuse of countercyclical policy suggests that it's more important than ever to get policy right now. Unfortunately, Washington is failing miserably on this score. Policy stances that were inadequate before now look dangerously tight. The Federal Reserve should have all the excuse it needs to reconsider its decision to halt purchases of government assets. Despite all the warnings about inflation, the core Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, which the Fed follows closely, rose just 1.3% in the year to the second quarter. That's far too low.

Meanwhile, Congress' behaviour looks incredibly reckless in light of new figures. This publication has argued consistently that while America needs to address its medium- and long-run fiscal challenges, immediate austerity would be a mistake. The dire economic situation undergirds this point: Washington should delay immediate fiscal cuts. Indeed, it ought to be spending more now and revisiting the possibility of a payroll tax cut.

Instead, it seems as though the best possible outcome of the current debt-ceiling impasse is a deal which hacks away at current spending, increasing the government drag on growth. The risk remains, however, that Congress will fail to reach a deal in time, piling immediate, chaotic spending cuts of about 44% on top of the current malaise. Given consumer anxiety, the risk of a catastrophic government failure, however small, isn't helping.

And of course, there is no shortage of trouble elsewhere. All signs indicate that now is the time for policymakers to rush to the tiller and pilot the ship quickly and decisively back on course. Instead, leaders have left the economy adrift, even as rocks loom ahead.
 
The rather modest cuts (<$3.0 Trillion) are being proposed over 10 years, with little to be cut right now. The US GDP is about $15 Trillion, annual government expenditures are around $3 Trillion. Thus the proposals are to cut current expenditures by around 10% (on average over 10 years). I think good adequate accountants can find 10% 'slaxk' or 'fat' in the expenditures of almost every developed democracy including Canada and the USA.

I am <sarcasm> confident </sarcasm> that some (many? most?) politicians will want to cut in ways that secure the greatest disadvantage for the other party and which do the least damage to their own supporters rather than following the advice of non-partisan experts.
 
I think the US economy is in much worse shape than you. Without a manufacturing base I think it is structurally flawed. They rely on being thought of as the heart of the global economy. Prestige is a large part of their economic strength. They seem to be working hard to diminish this. As this happens their dollar will lose value and since almost everything is imported inflation will spike. I could easily see things spiraling out of control in a few years. I think we should start opening trade to Asia and stop bugging China about human rights. Last year we sold more wood to China than America. I think that is the future. We only need one large market, not necessarily American. China has 438 million people in it's middle class now.
 
Thinking on manufacturing/market.

The U.S. needs China as much as China needs the U.S.
 
Nemo888 said:
I think the US economy is in much worse shape than you. Without a manufacturing base I think it is structurally flawed. They rely on being thought of as the heart of the global economy. Prestige is a large part of their economic strength. They seem to be working hard to diminish this. As this happens their dollar will lose value and since almost everything is imported inflation will spike. I could easily see things spiraling out of control in a few years. I think we should start opening trade to Asia and stop bugging China about human rights. Last year we sold more wood to China than America. I think that is the future. We only need one large market, not necessarily American. China has 438 million people in it's middle class now.


I agree with you. If I subscribed to conspiracy theories I might ask: "How much are the Chines paying these clowns (Obama and the Tea Partiers, akile, and almost everyone in between) to attack the US dollar?"

One of China's medium term aims is to replace the US Dollar with the IMF's SDRs as the world's reserve currency. Notwithstanding the merits or lack of same of that proposal, it was a non-starter ... until now.

 
To which cuts exactly does "All the government cuts have thrown their economy into negative growth for over three years now." refer?

"Unemployment" is not a saved job - it is unemployment.  Government jobs were saved, though - that seems to be where most or at least a large minority of the "stimulus" funding ended.  It is not hard to see why: hoping that the recession would be brief, the Democrats sought to protect their public service supporters (heavily and militantly unionized and vocal) by padding over shortfalls for a couple of years.  Unfortunately for them, the drop in economic activity represents the end of a bubble, not a dip in the road.  Now large cutbacks are looming (unless another "stimulus" can be sold as debt to protect the privileged interests).

Everyone who works puts money directly back into the economy.  Each unemployed worker represents a loss on the "contributions" side and a gain on the "expenses" side.  Policies to regrow the work force are more important than policies to protect public services from 10% cuts (salary/benefit cuts or job cuts; heck, let them choose by popular vote down at the union hall).

The concern that the economy is too weak for harsh measures now assumes it will get better, not worse.  That should not be assumed.  There is plenty of room downslope as well as upslope.
 
57Chevy said:
Thinking on manufacturing/market.
The U.S. needs China as much as China needs the U.S.

Sure. But this is not 1990 anymore. I can’t buy a Tang dynasty bowl in Toronto Chinatown for less than 200$ anymore either. Things like that don’t leave China now. There are 132,000 millionaires living in Shanghai alone. 30 years ago there were none.  They now have a domestic middle class market larger than the total population of the US. They can start throwing their weight around now.  ie, I can no longer buy up unique cultural artifacts for a days pay.

Brad Sallows said:
To which cuts exactly does "All the government cuts have thrown their economy into negative growth for over three years now." refer?

Cuts at the State and local level have actually been much larger than the stimulus in 5 of the last 7 quarters. Enough to put put the GDP into negative territory. Policies that increase GDP, including debt spending, are the source of jobs and growth. Shrinking government is eating up all the gains in other sectors. Total spending drops.  Then on main street no one is buying pizza or a new vacuum. Then the pizza place goes under, the vac store declares bankruptcy and the last American vacuum factory lays off more employees, who no longer buy pizza, etc. The economic miracle in China works just as well in reverse. The more the economy grows, the more it grows. The more it shrinks, the more it shrinks. What we need now is equilibrium to stop more dominos falling. I suppose letting it all fall apart is another option. I don’t really see why though. Do you hate America for some reason?  >:D joke >:D
 
I think that shrinking government does, in at least the short term, shrink the economy, too. That's what we saw in Canada circa 1995 and it's what we are seeing in the UK this year. It is quite likely that shrinking the US government, now, will also shrink the economy at an unfortunate time. But, my understanding is that there are only modest cuts proposed for 2013 and they will have to grow over the ten year period.

From the immediate and near term point of view there is never a good time to shrink government but, from the long term and even medium term points of view there is never a bad time to start shrinking government, not even in a period of very slow growth and high unemployment, because the available evidence appears, to me, to indicate that the economy can and will shake off the initial shocks and will grow again.

:2c:
 
The increasingly shrill assertations that cuts in government spending will somehow hurt the economy seem to ignore the very demonstrable fact that the multiple billions of dollars in "stimulus" spending did not work at all. The Presidednt predicted that without "stimulus" spending the unemployment rate would increase to @ 8%, and only a massive stimulus could prevent it.

Well we got the massive stimulus demanded and official unemployment is stuck at a bit over 9% in the US, with an additional drag of people who have stopped looking for work. Since these are actually unemployed people, the true rate of unemployment is far higher than 9%.

Canada did have a modest "stimulus" forced on the economy for political reasons (see Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition), but has followed a course of graduated tax cuts and now deficit reduction for the most part. Our job creation numbers are better and our unemployment is lower, which should suggest something to the objective observer.
 
But State and local cuts were significantly greater than the Federal stimulus in the USA. The stimulus you are talking about is a fiction. Canada did have a real stimulus, 2% of GDP, like all the other G20 nations. I think it went fine. It gave us a breather and some economic equilibrium to change course and find new markets. Now we can pay it off and try and not get sucked down with the US.
 
Back
Top