Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: How is America ever going to lose its debt?
  • Subject: How is America ever going to lose its debt?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: How is America ever going to lose its debt?

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: A Good Troll
Myth. Living standards fell during the war due to price controls and rationing. GDP growth was driven by burgeoning war debt that is in no way equatable to private market growth. Private GDP was lower during the war than it was during the Depression.

Living standards increased during the war. Scarce labor and price controls led to employers getting flexible by offering things like medical coverage. That was the birth of employer based health insurance. Wage controls led to a large equalization of wages because higher ups were not getting raises and the lowly paid work was getting raises. Then of course living standards continued to skyrocket into the 1950's for the median wage earner.

  • 11.27.2012 12:57 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla
2) You liquefy debt with a nation upon declaring war with it. If there is ever a future war between us, all debt will be void.


What is it with all you bloody warmongers?

It's more or less inevitable. Plus it's profitable, if you strike at the opportune moment, e.g., whenever the Chinese populace gets fed up and revolts again. Declare war on the Chinese government, destroy it, profit, and restore the original non-pseudo-Communist government exiled in Taiwan. Of course, because politicians are fools, they'll probably strike during some other time and miss the chance to restore the old Chinese government. (There's most likely going to be a war or a series of proxy wars within the century, I'd bet on it.)

  • 11.27.2012 12:57 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: colbyrules8
We really don't owe that much money to China, of course it seems like a lot when you look at the number, but compared to our overall debt, we owe China a minute amount.

Most people believe that we owe China over ten trillion dollars, it is around 3-4 trillion (I believe).

Less. Around 9% of American debt is owed to China.

  • 11.27.2012 12:59 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: Vgnut117

Posted by: colbyrules8
We really don't owe that much money to China, of course it seems like a lot when you look at the number, but compared to our overall debt, we owe China a minute amount.

Most people believe that we owe China over ten trillion dollars, it is around 3-4 trillion (I believe).

Less. Around 9% of American debt is owed to China.

Still astronomical, but nothing like the lulzy stuff flaunted around on Faux News.

Really, I get sick and tired of people thinking China owns America. Hell, if we pulled up shop and set up our factories in Mexico, China's economy would crash.

  • 11.27.2012 1:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Foman is my favorite moderator. <3


Posted by: Vgnut117
Living standards increased during the war. Scarce labor and price controls led to employers getting flexible by offering things like medical coverage. That was the birth of employer based health insurance. Wage controls led to a large equalization of wages because higher ups were not getting raises and the lowly paid work was getting raises.

Income per capita fell during the war. GDP per capita rose. I'm not going to link falling incomes to increased living standards. You can pin that blame where you want - including women becoming a major part of the work force and also a lesser paid part traditionally - but incomes fell.

Then of course living standards continued to skyrocket into the 1950's for the median wage earner.
The only part of your post I'll agree with. Reference. You'll note an interesting correlation between government spending and boom/bust times.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 1:08 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 1:05 PM PDT

"You are the last of your kind: bred for combat, built for war. You're the master of any weapon, pilot of any vehicle, and fear no enemy"

Annex.

  • 11.27.2012 1:07 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: Wyzilla
Still astronomical, but nothing like the lulzy stuff flaunted around on Faux News.

Really, I get sick and tired of people thinking China owns America. Hell, if we pulled up shop and set up our factories in Mexico, China's economy would crash.

I'm sure it would if you did that overnight. That is what's gradually happening though. Manufacturing is evolving into a robotics based industry which requires high productivity. Plus the Chinese currency is gradually appreciating.

It's not all about trade either. Chinese people do buy things just like us Westerners. They consume G&S which is what makes up most of GDP.

  • 11.27.2012 1:07 PM PDT


Posted by: Wyzilla

Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla
2) You liquefy debt with a nation upon declaring war with it. If there is ever a future war between us, all debt will be void.


What is it with all you bloody warmongers?

It's more or less inevitable. Plus it's profitable, if you strike at the opportune moment, e.g., whenever the Chinese populace gets fed up and revolts again. Declare war on the Chinese government, destroy it, profit, and restore the original non-pseudo-Communist government exiled in Taiwan. Of course, because politicians are fools, they'll probably strike during some other time and miss the chance to restore the old Chinese government. (There's most likely going to be a war or a series of proxy wars within the century, I'd bet on it.)


You are deluded in this regard. Do you really, honestly think that a war between America and China would just remain as a war between America and China? War, inevitably, crosses borders due to political, economical and military interests of other hostile/ally countries to those that are at war already - just look at World Wars 1 and 2, they were very localised in the beginning, but they quickly spiralled out of control (so to speak) and consumed nearly the entire globe in a war.

If the US and China went to war with each other, this spread of conflict would happen again - until the whole bloody planet was dragged into yet another stupid world war, and nobody would profit from a third world war.

I'd also like to add that even if you think that China and the US would be the only warring countries in such a hypothetical conflict - you seem to think that it would be trivial for the US to defeat China, it would not be given that the US would essentially lose anyway due to an utter economic collapse (China would pull all monetary support from the flimsy foundations of America's economy in the event of their defeat and bring the entire global economy to a crashing halt).

Bottom line: a war of this scale is not profitable to any party, thus why it has not happened to date.

  • 11.27.2012 1:07 PM PDT

Think you can take me in NHL12? Send me a message/invite

war

  • 11.27.2012 1:12 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: A Good Troll

Posted by: Vgnut117
Living standards increased during the war. Scarce labor and price controls led to employers getting flexible by offering things like medical coverage. That was the birth of employer based health insurance. Wage controls led to a large equalization of wages because higher ups were not getting raises and the lowly paid work was getting raises.

Income per capita fell during the war. GDP per capita rose.

Then of course living standards continued to skyrocket into the 1950's for the median wage earner.
The only part of your post I'll agree with. Reference. You'll note an interesting correlation between government spending and boom/bust times.

Yes but you're using the average here. How well does per capita income measure the standard of living? There was major redistribution at the time so the top earners were all falling bringing the average down.

I'd say the median income measures standard of living better.

And during the busts we see government spending drastically increase. There's nothing surprising about that. Unemployment goes up, automatic stabilizers kick in, government spending increases.

If we're looking at it currently the huge population of American poor are leading to increases in spending.


[Edited on 11.27.2012 1:15 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 1:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Foman is my favorite moderator. <3

tell me what is it good for

  • 11.27.2012 1:14 PM PDT

Do you know what kind of hat I'm wearing?

A party hat; you don't get one. An honor will this party be, a party in your honor, for your honor. Some of Tfear's personal guards are going to be there. You'll be introduced shortly.

Prepare to die.

Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Binman59
Posted by: Bryanesie
Don't worry when China asks for their money back we'll say no, go to war, win, and then not have to pay back anything.


LOL how will murica beat china?
Are you ignorant enough to think that the US would lose in a war against China? Especially when they declare war, voiding out debt, all we have to do is sit back and watch them try to float their POS navy over to us and , bye bye Chinese military.

You're forgetting one important thing.

  • 11.27.2012 1:17 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla

Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla
2) You liquefy debt with a nation upon declaring war with it. If there is ever a future war between us, all debt will be void.


What is it with all you bloody warmongers?

It's more or less inevitable. Plus it's profitable, if you strike at the opportune moment, e.g., whenever the Chinese populace gets fed up and revolts again. Declare war on the Chinese government, destroy it, profit, and restore the original non-pseudo-Communist government exiled in Taiwan. Of course, because politicians are fools, they'll probably strike during some other time and miss the chance to restore the old Chinese government. (There's most likely going to be a war or a series of proxy wars within the century, I'd bet on it.)


You are deluded in this regard. Do you really, honestly think that a war between America and China would just remain as a war between America and China? War, inevitably, crosses borders due to political, economical and military interests of other hostile/ally countries to those that are at war already - just look at World Wars 1 and 2, they were very localised in the beginning, but they quickly spiralled out of control (so to speak) and consumed nearly the entire globe in a war.

If the US and China went to war with each other, this spread of conflict would happen again - until the whole bloody planet was dragged into yet another stupid world war, and nobody would profit from a third world war.

I'd also like to add that even if you think that China and the US would be the only warring countries in such a hypothetical conflict - you seem to think that it would be trivial for the US to defeat China, it would not be given that the US would essentially lose anyway due to an utter economic collapse (China would pull all monetary support from the flimsy foundations of America's economy in the event of their defeat and bring the entire global economy to a crashing halt).

Bottom line: a war of this scale is not profitable to any party, thus why it has not happened to date.


You do realize that America could easily move its economic support to Mexico, and China's economy would collapse without any sort of American industry, right??

And by profitable, I mean that the U.S. in a total war with China would sack it silly, raze its cities, and help itself to the country's resources. And China's military is laughable at best. Their only advantages is their new experimental fifth-generation fighter and their anti-carrier missiles. Otherwise America holds all the aces. Not to mention that in this scenario, as others would be dragged in, America would be bringing in all the heavy support with NATO, along with numerous pacific nations, while China's allies are largely weaker nations that would be swept aside. It's doubtful that Russia would partake in such a war. They might even want a slice of China as well, due to their rivalry over resources.

  • 11.27.2012 1:19 PM PDT


Posted by: Vgnut117

Posted by: A Good Troll
Myth. Living standards fell during the war due to price controls and rationing. GDP growth was driven by burgeoning war debt that is in no way equatable to private market growth. Private GDP was lower during the war than it was during the Depression.

Living standards increased during the war. Scarce labor and price controls led to employers getting flexible by offering things like medical coverage. That was the birth of employer based health insurance. Wage controls led to a large equalization of wages because higher ups were not getting raises and the lowly paid work was getting raises. Then of course living standards continued to skyrocket into the 1950's for the median wage earner.
Semi-true. Part of it was because the US was basically a manufacturing head of the allies, made MASSIVE amount of equipment for the military, but also other militaries. Not to mention they supplied food and supplies to other countries as aid. We kind of had a monoply over the world for having all our of production not getting bombardment constantly, and had the infrastructure to actually move it around unlike other countries which weren't affected by the war.
Part of the reason for the higher wages was the fact the war gave us an excuse for high taxes and controlled rations of supplies, not to mention the government bought out a lot of average businesses with the cost-plus program, we had all the resources of the time to basically most people in our country to be well off so they can produce more which was needed.

  • 11.27.2012 1:19 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: Nannerpus

Posted by: Binman59

Posted by: Bryanesie
Don't worry when China asks for their money back we'll say no, go to war, win, and then not have to pay back anything.


LOL how will murica beat china?

...you're joking, right?

  • 11.27.2012 1:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Foman is my favorite moderator. <3

Posted by: Vgnut117
Yes but you're using the average here. How well does per capita income measure the standard of living? There was major redistribution at the time so the top earners were all falling bringing the average down.

I'd say the median income measures standard of living better.

To be honest, I'd probably have a hard time finding median statistics on data back then. So we'd probably both be speculating - though I will say even today when nearly everyone agrees wealth is at its most uneven distribution the mean and median vary only by a couple thousand bucks if I recall.

Posted by: Vgnut117
And during the busts we see government spending drastically increase. There's nothing surprising about that. Unemployment goes up, automatic stabilizers kick in, government spending increases.

The argument here would be whether government spending started to grow before or after and whether that government debt created an equal or greater positive influence on GDP.

I'm not throwing Keynesian ideas under the bus completely - I'm just saying the Keynesian multiplier on a lot of government projects, especially defense spending, probably is not 1 or greater.

Spending $5 million on a bomb to drop on a terrorist, driven by debt or taxation, probably does not create more value than $5 million in spending in the hands of consumers. Opportunity cost and what not applies.

  • 11.27.2012 1:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Put a cap on spending, and stop borrowing money.

  • 11.27.2012 1:21 PM PDT

I am an Xbox Live Ambassador so feel free to hit me up with any questions via PM :)

Follow me Twitter: @TheBestTheyHad

Well seeing as if every American paid the government $3,500 that would clear our debt I don't really see this as a drastic thing.

  • 11.27.2012 1:23 PM PDT


Posted by: Wyzilla

Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla

Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360

Posted by: Wyzilla
2) You liquefy debt with a nation upon declaring war with it. If there is ever a future war between us, all debt will be void.


What is it with all you bloody warmongers?

It's more or less inevitable. Plus it's profitable, if you strike at the opportune moment, e.g., whenever the Chinese populace gets fed up and revolts again. Declare war on the Chinese government, destroy it, profit, and restore the original non-pseudo-Communist government exiled in Taiwan. Of course, because politicians are fools, they'll probably strike during some other time and miss the chance to restore the old Chinese government. (There's most likely going to be a war or a series of proxy wars within the century, I'd bet on it.)


You are deluded in this regard. Do you really, honestly think that a war between America and China would just remain as a war between America and China? War, inevitably, crosses borders due to political, economical and military interests of other hostile/ally countries to those that are at war already - just look at World Wars 1 and 2, they were very localised in the beginning, but they quickly spiralled out of control (so to speak) and consumed nearly the entire globe in a war.

If the US and China went to war with each other, this spread of conflict would happen again - until the whole bloody planet was dragged into yet another stupid world war, and nobody would profit from a third world war.

I'd also like to add that even if you think that China and the US would be the only warring countries in such a hypothetical conflict - you seem to think that it would be trivial for the US to defeat China, it would not be given that the US would essentially lose anyway due to an utter economic collapse (China would pull all monetary support from the flimsy foundations of America's economy in the event of their defeat and bring the entire global economy to a crashing halt).

Bottom line: a war of this scale is not profitable to any party, thus why it has not happened to date.


You do realize that America could easily move its economic support to Mexico, and China's economy would collapse without any sort of American industry, right??

And by profitable, I mean that the U.S. in a total war with China would sack it silly, raze its cities, and help itself to the country's resources. And China's military is laughable at best. Their only advantages is their new experimental fifth-generation fighter and their anti-carrier missiles. Otherwise America holds all the aces. Not to mention that in this scenario, as others would be dragged in, America would be bringing in all the heavy support with NATO, along with numerous pacific nations, while China's allies are largely weaker nations that would be swept aside. It's doubtful that Russia would partake in such a war. They might even want a slice of China as well, due to their rivalry over resources.


Why do I even bother?

Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and debate pointless hearsay, aggression and patriotic chest-pounding - conversations on war do not make me salivate unlike a lot of people who seem to be turned on by the thought of destroying cities, killing civilians and generally screwing humanity over. I have scientific research to do - a task which actually helps to advance our species and progress us towards a better future rather than talking about "sacking countries silly".

  • 11.27.2012 1:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Foman is my favorite moderator. <3


Posted by: Wyzilla
You do realize that America could easily move its economic support to Mexico, and China's economy would collapse without any sort of American industry, right??

Sorry but no.

The infrastructure in Mexico or Canada does not exist for large-scale American industry, especially technology manufacturers like Apple, to move to Mexico.

Big Chinese manufacturers like FoxConn that supply tech giants like Microsoft and Apple employ hundreds of thousands of workers in just one area. The factories cost tens of billions to manufacture and years to finish construction.

You can't just say "screw China" and tell American companies to move to Mexico tomorrow. They couldn't produce.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 1:26 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 1:25 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: A Good Troll
To be honest, I'd probably have a hard time finding median statistics on data back then. So we'd probably both be speculating - though I will say even today when nearly everyone agrees wealth is at its most uneven distribution the mean and median vary only by a couple thousand bucks if I recall.

It's hard to pinpoint median income. If we look at it by individuals it's been stagnate for 30+ years or decreased. If we do it by household it's increased however that doesn't factor in the costs of two parents working in a family.
The mean has climbed because you basically have a small elite of extremely wealthy driving up the average.

It's like sending an A+ student into a fledgling class. Average marks shoot up but it's still a fledgling class. That's been the US for the last thirty or so years and that's why I'm stressing the median.


The argument here would be whether government spending started to grow before or after and whether that government debt created an equal or greater positive influence on GDP.

I'm not throwing Keynesian ideas under the bus completely - I'm just saying the Keynesian multiplier on a lot of government projects, especially defense spending, probably is not 1 or greater.

Spending $5 million on a bomb to drop on a terrorist, driven by debt or taxation, probably does not create more value than $5 million in spending in the hands of consumers. Opportunity cost and what not applies.

There's nothing to disagree with there. All I'd add I guess is that discretionary fiscal spending is part of the picture. A lot of that increased spending today is on social insurance. We've had the discussion on making health costs cheaper. Assaulting poverty is the other way to reduce government spending.

  • 11.27.2012 1:31 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: A Good Troll

Posted by: Wyzilla
You do realize that America could easily move its economic support to Mexico, and China's economy would collapse without any sort of American industry, right??

Sorry but no.

The infrastructure in Mexico or Canada does not exist for large-scale American industry, especially technology manufacturers like Apple, to move to Mexico.

Big Chinese manufacturers like FoxConn that supply tech giants like Microsoft and Apple employ hundreds of thousands of workers in just one area. The factories cost tens of billions to manufacture and years to finish construction.

You can't just say "screw China" and tell American companies to move to Mexico tomorrow. They couldn't produce.

Obviously it would take a long amount of time, but it's easy to take advantage of poorer countries. Just the main problem is that companies wouldn't be willing to take a drop in profits, as China offers rock-bottom prices and has saturated the market.

What we should be doing though is getting read to pull the -blam!- out of china and swap our imports for our main businesses to someone else, as I will bet that within the next century, something will spill over in China that will lead to a crisis of some sort, and it'd be best avoided.

(Also, hell, there's always India as well)

  • 11.27.2012 1:32 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360


War is good for business. My definition of the greater good is the survival of humanity, and being the likelihood of MAD if anyone dares launch a nuke, and the likelihood of another large war in the future should things go south, war would be beneficial for humanity on a whole from the technology that would arise from the conflict. While I would guess that proxy conflicts between superpowers are safer and have a greater chance to occur, history does suggest that a world war is not that unlikely within this century. We've had three world wars already (Seven Year's War was technically the first, then WWI and WWII, the Napoleonic Wars were certainly large as well, not near a world war, but were a massive conflict between nations). And history has also proven that large wars are beneficial in the long run.

  • 11.27.2012 1:39 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4