American Debt/Deficit Spending Crisis (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

Well, the Irish Debt Crisis thread reminded my about the lack of comprehension in the US concerning our deficit spending.

The New York Times recently raised the fear factor ("national security") over the proposed "investment" of China into Chesapeake Energy. I assume this was done as a precursor for Congress to step in to end certain aspects of free-trade.

But this raises an even more important issue. Few people it seem to equate "national security" with deficit spending. Basically we are giving the Chinese the money to buy US assets, including those pesky "national security" technologies that we don't seem want the Chinese to have.

The US orgy of deficit spending is not simply an economic issue, but one of "national security" too. Our zombie Congress people need to to address the deficit spending. Time to learn Chinese?

 

[the_net_2.0]

unfortunately, China holds the USA in limbo. If they cut the cord, I'm out of this country on the next flight.

 

[Adam Caramon]

But this raises an even more important issue. Few people it seem to equate "national security" with deficit spending. Basically we are giving the Chinese the money to buy US assets, including those pesky "national security" technologies that we don't seem want the Chinese to have.

I think it is because people can't really comprehend a debt in the trillions of dollars. It almost sounds like a made up word when you think about it.

Also, a lot of people can't understand how we choose to allocate our money. We spend so much money on military spending, and then we penny-pinch on other things. Most people agree things need to be cut, less spending, but where to start?

Personally, I'd say cut military spending, review nonprofit status for certain business' (churches in particular would be good to look at), raise the cap on Medicare taxable income, and review some of the tax loop holes that allow people to avoid paying their fair share.

 

[Thales750]

The crises is not governement spending.

The crises is Americans paying taxes so the multinationals can dismantle the country. We spend our time arguing over the issues that they want us to argue about.

The multinationals are the enemy. Wake up America.

 

[ColinEssex]

Maybe the USA would like to bail out the Irish - the US sent enough money to arm the IRA to kill British troops and UK citizens - now maybe they would like to "help" the Southern Irish?

D

 

[statsman]

In the past, the standard response by government to a recession was to spend their way out of it.

The current US government (starting with President Bush) has gone this traditional path. The problem is, this time its not working. The debt is in the trillions and there are still millions unemployed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Part of the debt crisis in the USA was caused by the bail-out, spending money we didn't have to bail out businesses that were too top-heavy to be allowed to survive. In my opinion (and not so humble an opinion, either...), a lot of the companies should have been allowed to go under - at least to the bankruptcy stage that is recoverable by sale of some assets and reorganization. The greed that drove the big financial institutions should have been truly punished. Not just a wrist-slap, but perhaps radical amputation of the wrist that was connected to the hand that was grabbing money out of entirely too many pockets.

 

[Thales750]

Part of the debt crisis in the USA was caused by the bail-out, spending money we didn't have to bail out businesses that were too top-heavy to be allowed to survive. In my opinion (and not so humble an opinion, either...), a lot of the companies should have been allowed to go under - at least to the bankruptcy stage that is recoverable by sale of some assets and reorganization. The greed that drove the big financial institutions should have been truly punished. Not just a wrist-slap, but perhaps radical amputation of the wrist that was connected to the hand that was grabbing money out of entirely too many pockets.

AIG will still fall, but their impact on the derivatives markets was mitigated. They were forced to sell their most valuable assets, but it was done over an extended period.

You cannot fix this problem, much to the chagrin of the republicans in 2012, by reducing spending. The only way to fix the global financial crises is to force companies to invest in their homeland. And couple that with protectionist tax laws.
In the last 30 years the nature of capital has changed, most people cannot comprehend this, we have realized two orders of magnitude in manufacturing efficiencies, and 3 orders of magnitude in currency fluidity, since the 1960s.
Read “IRobot” Isaac Asimov understood this decades ago. If we don’t stop pursuing the absolute most efficient means, the end will be global social unrest. We must keep the young men working in jobs that leave them little time for idle activities, like overthrowing societies.

 

[ColinEssex]

It would also help if our stupid governments didn't give so much money away.

Tinpot little countries in (for example) Africa get billions in aid money. They have learnt that if they don't make the effort on their own then the generous western countries will give them billions in aid. They should be told what we are told if we want money and can't raise collateral - your problem mate - not mine, sort yourself out.

The first rule of government should be to look after No1 - i.e. their own country. Unless it's the USA of course who started the global crisis and should be made to pay.

D

 

[Adam Caramon]

Unless it's the USA of course who started the global crisis and should be made to pay.

I think you're giving us too much credit. The United States throwing the whole world into financial crisis? If that's true, maybe the USA is as powerful and dominant as some people say.

 

[Pauldohert]

I think you're giving us too much credit. The United States throwing the whole world into financial crisis? If that's true, maybe the USA is as powerful and dominant as some people say.

No - it WAS?

 

[Thales750]

No - it WAS?

And so was England.

But the next super power are China and India. I would be careful to avoid the hammer and the anvil.

You people will miss the Good Ol' USA; long before this is all over with.

 

[Pauldohert]

And so was England.

But the next super power are China and India. I would be careful to avoid the hammer and the anvil.

You people will miss the Good Ol' USA; long before this is all over with.

You people?

 

[Thales750]

You people?

I guess our alies. The 21st century, it looks like, belongs to Asia.

 

[Pauldohert]

So clearly you dont think India or China are your allies?

Allies in what exactly?

 

[Thales750]

So clearly you dont think India or China are your allies?

Allies in what exactly?

Oh I think when the English speaking people of the world are no longer the main force. Many changes will be dictated upon us.

 

[ColinEssex]

Oh I think when the English speaking people of the world are no longer the main force. Many changes will be dictated upon us.

And the Americans would never dream of doing such a thing

D

 

[the_net_2.0]

Oh I think when the English speaking people of the world are no longer the main force. Many changes will be dictated upon us.

They are the main force Thales. In the USA in particular, there is an ongoing battle between Indians and Americans in the corporate workforce. IMO, Indians are extremely intelligent when it comes to IT issue (most are, that is), but their traditional business knowledge lacks far behind that of the English speaking countries.

But...the way of "running around with your head cut off" is the new way of the world. unfortunately, this type of leadership and business model is gaining popularity very quickly. And it sells too. If we can't adapt to it, we'll soon be phased out.

I guess our alies. The 21st century, it looks like, belongs to Asia.

YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT buster. Economies prosper because of consumerism, and Americans don't participate anymore. The hope of prospering lies with Asian and Hispanic markets, plain and simple.

 

[PNGBill]

A lot of things have changed and will continue to change. One of these may well be the Definition of a Super Power.
India and China may well have a large army but this doesn't mean as much as it may have 100 years ago.
eg even a USA with half the resources it has now can better deploy a "strike force" in most parts of the world then either India or China.
The concept of an Invasion Fleet eg D Day, being formed and delivered is virtually impossible against a target that has satellite and cruise missile capabilities.
Countries like the USA will always have a certain strength in that they are able to feed themselves, defend themselves and have nearly all the natural resources when push comes to shove.

Will they always be able to come to the aid of a South Korea - No this will not be a Given but just as the USSR imploded so will any other bloated empire, in time.

Food may well be the future economy of the world and until a country can feed itself they will always need to either trade, conquer or starve.

 

[the_net_2.0]

Food may well be the future economy of the world and until a country can feed itself they will always need to either trade, conquer or starve.

Well that was REALLY inspiring to read Bill!

I read an article the other day that water is being looked at for private use with corporations. I might look into investments with H20 companies, or ones that possibly have their hand in the jar already, like Alaskan-based firms.