I was wondering when this would happen :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930
Interesting. I was reading speculation earlier that S&P wouldn't do that because it was unlikely to go solo when the other two ratings agencies had already said they wouldn't downgrade.
I'm not sure how much impact this will have on the markets... I would think a large part of it has already been priced in, but I really don't know.
It makes sense to me that they would, though. They blew it on CDOs and subprime mortgage debt... I guess they don't want to make the same mistake twice. The only thing I find really annoying about all this is all the crowing that's going to come from countries like Russia. :rolleyes:
"S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough."
Does that mean that the Tea Party-aligned members of Congress should have kept pushing for more cutbacks and/or the BBA?
Hmmm....
G.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 07:57:16 PM
"S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough."
Does that mean that the Tea Party-aligned members of Congress should have kept pushing for more cutbacks and/or the BBA?
It means all members of the legislature, regardless of affiliation, should have agreed on deeper cuts and on raising taxes.
What's BBA?
Balanced budget amendment in one of the various forms it was being discussed, like tied to inflation, cost of living or something, etc.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:03:10 PM
Balanced budget amendment in one of the various forms it was being discussed, like tied to inflation, cost of living or something, etc.
Ah. Well bond markets don't care about the form deficit reduction takes.
So if our rating is downgraded, that means, theoretically, that it'll cost the US more to borrow, right? How likely is that to go on to impact consumer debt borrowing rates? I would assume very likely, but is it a total given?
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
So if our rating is downgraded, that means, theoretically, that it'll cost the US more to borrow, right? How likely is that to go on to impact consumer debt borrowing rates? I would assume very likely, but is it a total given?
I think it will have some short-term effects, as people over-react. Long-term, I am doubtful, as banks need to loan more than consumers need to borrow, in this environment. I got a call today from my business's bank, trying to entice me to borrow money at no interest.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
So if our rating is downgraded, that means, theoretically, that it'll cost the US more to borrow, right? How likely is that to go on to impact consumer debt borrowing rates? I would assume very likely, but is it a total given?
It probably doesn't really matter. Ratings on more obscure debt can be important because the agency ratings may be the extent of research done by some investors. That won't matter for US debt, because the financial position of the US isn't unknown. Also ratings can matter for regulatory reasons: some regulated companies have to hold their assets in highly rated debt, so a downgrade may mean a bunch of debt needs to get dumped by these companies. Going to AA+ shouldn't make much difference.
I also don't understand what a rating really represents on a government with a fiat currency and the power to print money.
Agree Grumbler and AR :) It doesn't matter to me as we don't have any variable rate debt and have no intention of taking on new debt anytime soon... but I have friends and family who've been asking me a lot about this, so I wanted to kinda check and make sure I wasn't totally off base.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 07:57:16 PM
"S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough."
Does that mean that the Tea Party-aligned members of Congress should have kept pushing for more cutbacks and/or the BBA?
No. It means that the Tea Party-aligned Congressmen should have been pushing for tax increases.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
I also don't understand what a rating really represents on a government with a fiat currency and the power to print money.
Plenty of countries with independent currencies have defaulted on debt. Russia defaulted on ruble denominated debt. If I'm not mistaken the UK has defaulted on sterling debt at least once. There are bound to be times when default appears to be a preferable option to hyperinflation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 05, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
I also don't understand what a rating really represents on a government with a fiat currency and the power to print money.
Plenty of countries with independent currencies have defaulted on debt. Russia defaulted on ruble denominated debt. If I'm not mistaken the UK has defaulted on sterling debt at least once. There are bound to be times when default appears to be a preferable option to hyperinflation.
I'm not sure about your history if we are limiting this to fiat money without pegs or other ties to commodities or currencies, but it really doesn't matter. It seems to me that you are assessing a liklihood of a decision to default rather than an economic condition that will make default necessary. Countries have been known to go into hyperinflation too.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:27:37 PM
I'm not sure about your history if we are limiting this to fiat money without pegs or other ties to commodities or currencies, but it really doesn't matter. It seems to me that you are assessing a liklihood of a decision to default rather than an economic condition that will make default necessary. Countries have been known to go into hyperinflation too.
Well, if you're going to get all philosophical about it, all defaults are ultimately choices. I've never heard of a country that defaulted because its debt service exceeded its GDP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 05, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:27:37 PM
I'm not sure about your history if we are limiting this to fiat money without pegs or other ties to commodities or currencies, but it really doesn't matter. It seems to me that you are assessing a liklihood of a decision to default rather than an economic condition that will make default necessary. Countries have been known to go into hyperinflation too.
Well, if you're going to get all philosophical about it, all defaults are ultimately choices. I've never heard of a country that defaulted because its debt service exceeded its GDP.
Why would a country default because its debt service exceeds GDP, when it could just print more money? :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Why would a country default because its debt service exceeds GDP, when it could just print more money? :P
Why would a country go through the hassle of hyperinflation when it can just default?
This is a summary paragraph from the full S&P report if anyone's interested:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 05, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Why would a country default because its debt service exceeds GDP, when it could just print more money? :P
Why would a country go through the hassle of hyperinflation when it can just default?
You have worn me down. :(
Ten years and three levels too late. We deserve a BB+.
Exactly. Not enough tax increases.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 09:24:04 PM
Exactly. Not enough tax increases.
Not until spending is cut to 1790 levels.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2011, 09:16:48 PM
Ten years and three levels too late. We deserve a BB+.
ar is right in that this is essentially meaningless. When the market tanks, and everyone runs to T-bills, this should be an indicator that everything else is at least one order of magnitude more fucked up than the US economy.
If it weren't, we'd be subject to Canadian monetary hegemony.
I wonder if S&P is going to keep anyone with significant exposure to the US government at a AAA rating.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-last-aaa-countries-2011-8#safe-aaa-rating-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-last-aaa-countries-2011-8#safe-aaa-rating-1)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 10:10:46 PM
I wonder if S&P is going to keep anyone with significant exposure to the US government at a AAA rating.
What, then, would S&P's rating be, if they issued corporate bonds?
Quote from: Scipio on August 05, 2011, 10:19:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 10:10:46 PM
I wonder if S&P is going to keep anyone with significant exposure to the US government at a AAA rating.
What, then, would S&P's rating be, if they issued corporate bonds?
AAA if rated by S&P, junk if rated by Moody's or Fitch?
Quote from: Scipio on August 05, 2011, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2011, 09:16:48 PM
Ten years and three levels too late. We deserve a BB+.
ar is right in that this is essentially meaningless. When the market tanks, and everyone runs to T-bills, this should be an indicator that everything else is at least one order of magnitude more fucked up than the US economy.
If it weren't, we'd be subject to Canadian monetary hegemony.
Soon... soon...
:shifty:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 05, 2011, 10:19:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2011, 10:10:46 PM
I wonder if S&P is going to keep anyone with significant exposure to the US government at a AAA rating.
What, then, would S&P's rating be, if they issued corporate bonds?
AAA if rated by S&P, junk if rated by Moody's or Fitch?
And I rest my case. Fiat currency is the toilet papier-mache of self-deception.
I wonder when France and Germany will be downgraded over the Euro bailouts.
Well fuck. :(
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 07:57:16 PM
"S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough."
Does that mean that the Tea Party-aligned members of Congress should have kept pushing for more cutbacks and/or the BBA?
No, it means you need to raise taxes from the lowest level in the last 50 years.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:51:40 PM
This is a summary paragraph from the full S&P report if anyone's interested:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."
So essentially they are saying that the Congress is a bunch of retarded kids.
Quote from: citizen k on August 05, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-last-aaa-countries-2011-8#safe-aaa-rating-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-last-aaa-countries-2011-8#safe-aaa-rating-1)
It's funny how Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany (i.e. according to the libertarian/tea party idiots the socialist dystopias that are allegedly on the brink of financial collapse) all have perfect AAA ratings. Meanwhile, electing the tea party idiots to the congress caused the country to lose its AAA status for the first time in a long while. Good job, America. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:27:28 AM
It's funny how Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany (i.e. according to the libertarian/tea party idiots the socialist dystopias that are allegedly on the brink of financial collapse) all have perfect AAA ratings. Meanwhile, electing the tea party idiots to the congress caused the country to lose its AAA status for the first time in a long while. Good job, America. :lol:
There is a flaw in the analysis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 02:29:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:27:28 AM
It's funny how Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany (i.e. according to the libertarian/tea party idiots the socialist dystopias that are allegedly on the brink of financial collapse) all have perfect AAA ratings. Meanwhile, electing the tea party idiots to the congress caused the country to lose its AAA status for the first time in a long while. Good job, America. :lol:
There is a flaw in the analysis.
There isn't. Deficit aside, S&P quotes the blackmail/paralysis by the tea party congress as a direct cause of the downgrade. The fact that the world's biggest economy can wait until the last hour to pass a bill preventing it from defaulting says something, irrespective of whether it is in deep financial shit or not. You have given the reins to nutcases, and that's the result.
BELOVED!!!!
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:31:28 AM
There isn't. Deficit aside, S&P quotes the blackmail/paralysis by the tea party congress as a direct cause of the downgrade. The fact that the world's biggest economy can wait until the last hour to pass a bill preventing it from defaulting says something, irrespective of whether it is in deep financial shit or not. You have given the reins to nutcases, and that's the result.
Why should we put the deficit aside?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 02:37:44 AM
Why should we put the deficit aside?
So he can get his digs in.
Yi, do you think the Standard and Poor would have reduced the US credit rating today had their not been a big debt ceiling fight that lasted months and was only resolved at the 11th hour?
It frustrates me that, because the value of our currency is more or less ephemeral, that we even have to have these discussions. If our currency was based on something of finite value, the writing on the wall would be clear as day - we would know exactly how we had to proceed.
Rather than raise taxes, I would prefer to see, first, how we look after major military scalebacks overseas and real entitlement reform that's beyond merely shuffling money around and other carnival sideshow tactics.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:24:08 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:51:40 PM
This is a summary paragraph from the full S&P report if anyone's interested:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."
So essentially they are saying that the Congress is a bunch of retarded kids.
:wacko: Marty and I agree on something. :shutup:
Quote from: Princesca on August 06, 2011, 06:46:54 AM
It frustrates me that, because the value of our currency is more or less ephemeral, that we even have to have these discussions. If our currency was based on something of finite value, the writing on the wall would be clear as day - we would know exactly how we had to proceed.
Rather than raise taxes, I would prefer to see, first, how we look after major military scalebacks overseas and real entitlement reform that's beyond merely shuffling money around and other carnival sideshow tactics.
Something of finite value? What like pork bellies?
The gold standard talk is an economics equivalent of a canary in the coal mine of crazy. Whenever you are dealing with a nutcase ignoramus, it is bound to eventually come up. :D
Quote from: Princesca on August 06, 2011, 06:46:54 AM
It frustrates me that, because the value of our currency is more or less ephemeral, that we even have to have these discussions. If our currency was based on something of finite value, the writing on the wall would be clear as day - we would know exactly how we had to proceed.
It is. It's based on the faith in and credit of the United States, which is certainly finite.
QuoteRather than raise taxes, I would prefer to see, first, how we look after major military scalebacks overseas and real entitlement reform that's beyond merely shuffling money around and other carnival sideshow tactics.
You'd still look like you need to raise taxes. You aren't spending as much as you think on the military, and I'm not sure that 'entitlement reform' is anything more than a buzzword.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 07:55:29 AM
The gold standard talk is an economics equivalent of a canary in the coal mine of crazy. Whenever you are dealing with a nutcase ignoramus, it is bound to eventually come up. :D
And here you are, and there it is.
Good job, Rebublicans. :showoff:
You could give these assclowns Switzerland and they'd turn it into Somalia in three months.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:21:28 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 07:57:16 PM
"S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough."
Does that mean that the Tea Party-aligned members of Congress should have kept pushing for more cutbacks and/or the BBA?
No, it means you need to raise taxes from the lowest level in the last 50 years.
The economy is (arguably) the worst it has been in the last 50 years, so the low tax revenue makes sense. Like very other state with a welfare system and progressive taxation, in difficult times spending goes up and tax revenue goes down. These are features referred to as automatic stabilizers.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 07:55:29 AM
The gold standard talk is an economics equivalent of a canary in the coal mine of crazy. Whenever you are dealing with a nutcase ignoramus, it is bound to eventually come up. :D
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's not what she's talking about. I'd like to think she's talking about basing our money on another commodity like lean hogs. Though it might make it difficult to buy Saudi Oil using pigs as currency.
Though technically the US dollar has a finite value and it has never been totally worthless.
Quote from: Princesca on August 06, 2011, 06:46:54 AM
Rather than raise taxes, I would prefer to see, first, how we look after major military scalebacks overseas and real entitlement reform that's beyond merely shuffling money around and other carnival sideshow tactics.
Fuck that shit. Raising taxes on the rich is much better than scrapping armored vehicles or Medicare. THEN WE CAN HAVE BOTH!!!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 06, 2011, 06:46:54 AM
Rather than raise taxes, I would prefer to see, first, how we look after major military scalebacks overseas and real entitlement reform that's beyond merely shuffling money around and other carnival sideshow tactics.
Fuck that shit. Raising taxes on the rich is much better than scrapping armored vehicles or Medicare. THEN WE CAN HAVE BOTH!!!
It's even better to raise taxes on the rich, the poor and the middle class.
Americans, welcome to the British experience of the last 90-100 years. :cheers:
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2011, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
Good job, Rebublicans. :showoff:
:huh:
QuoteWe lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Quote
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2011, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
Good job, Rebublicans. :showoff:
:huh:
QuoteThe political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy ... [This] weakens the government's ability to manage public finances ...
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/?mod=WSJ_markets_article_liveupdate (http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/?mod=WSJ_markets_article_liveupdate)
Again, way to go Republicans.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpgcodex.net%2FphpBB%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Forson_welles_clap.gif&hash=8f5a8ff7028885ea47b597a70eae6c703144e5a8)
Doesn't it take two to tango?
Quote from: garbon on August 06, 2011, 01:04:59 PM
Doesn't it take two to tango?
I have no idea what you mean. In the sense that yes, had the Democrats given into demands that it turns out were greater than Boehner's original demands from the get go, we probably could have avoided the hysterics. Maybe.
Quote from: garbon on August 06, 2011, 01:04:59 PM
Doesn't it take two to tango?
It does. There would be no hostage standoffs if police always gave in.
Quote from: garbon on August 06, 2011, 01:04:59 PM
Doesn't it take two to tango?
One to obstruct and one to be obstructed?
"Pox on both houses" is all the rage these days. You're not cool if you're not blaming both sides equally.
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2011, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
Good job, Rebublicans. :showoff:
:huh:
To bad we lost our archive. I could have sworn that either you ore Dps said they
wanted Congress to obstruct Obama.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 03:34:59 AM
Yi, do you think the Standard and Poor would have reduced the US credit rating today had their not been a big debt ceiling fight that lasted months and was only resolved at the 11th hour?
I don't know. But I do know that if the Republicans hadn't put a gun to the debt limit's head we wouldn't have even had the 2 trillion in deficit reduction that S&P considers inadequate. I also know that we started this whole thing off with Ryan's proposal to cut 6.2 trillion. I also know that our ratings outlook was lowered to negative before the debt limit came in to play.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2011, 02:24:08 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 08:51:40 PM
This is a summary paragraph from the full S&P report if anyone's interested:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."
So essentially they are saying that the Congress is a bunch of retarded kids.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
-Mark Twain
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 03:34:59 AM
Yi, do you think the Standard and Poor would have reduced the US credit rating today had their not been a big debt ceiling fight that lasted months and was only resolved at the 11th hour?
I don't know. But I do know that if the Republicans hadn't put a gun to the debt limit's head we wouldn't have even had the 2 trillion in deficit reduction that S&P considers inadequate. I also know that we started this whole thing off with Ryan's proposal to cut 6.2 trillion. I also know that our ratings outlook was lowered to negative before the debt limit came in to play.
6.2 trillion of what time period? A decade?
I guess you couldn't really know, but I'm going to make a guess. I'm going to guess they would not have. Do you know if they were threatening to do this back in say January or March? Usually they give a warning before hand.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 03:43:07 PM
6.2 trillion of what time period? A decade?
Yes.
QuoteI guess you couldn't really know, but I'm going to make a guess. I'm going to guess they would not have. Do you know if they were threatening to do this back in say January or March? Usually they give a warning before hand.
Who was threatening to do what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 03:29:51 PM
I don't know. But I do know that if the Republicans hadn't put a gun to the debt limit's head we wouldn't have even had the 2 trillion in deficit reduction that S&P considers inadequate. I also know that we started this whole thing off with Ryan's proposal to cut 6.2 trillion. I also know that our ratings outlook was lowered to negative before the debt limit came in to play.
Is it? Obama supported the Simpson deficit reduction plan before then, no? And as far back as 2009 Summers was talking about raising the age for Medicare.
Standard and Poor.
6.2 billion over ten years. Would S&P have found that adequate?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 03:29:51 PM
I don't know. But I do know that if the Republicans hadn't put a gun to the debt limit's head we wouldn't have even had the 2 trillion in deficit reduction that S&P considers inadequate. I also know that we started this whole thing off with Ryan's proposal to cut 6.2 trillion. I also know that our ratings outlook was lowered to negative before the debt limit came in to play.
Is it? Obama supported the Simpson deficit reduction plan before then, no? And as far back as 2009 Summers was talking about raising the age for Medicare.
I am curious how he knows this.
Quote from: Neil on August 06, 2011, 08:00:41 AM
I'm not sure that 'entitlement reform' is anything more than a buzzword.
It's not a buzzword--it's a political impossibility.
Which probably means that the deficits are just going to get worse, even if Congress cuts military spending and raises taxes.
Quote from: RazgovoryTo bad we lost our archive. I could have sworn that either you ore Dps said they wanted Congress to obstruct Obama.
I don't recall if I ever said that in those exact words, but of course I want them to oppose his policies when I'm opposed to them. D'oh.
I don't want them to be obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist, though. But that's the way the game is played in Washington.
I get you and Derspeiss confused. Entitlement reform is very much a buzzword. People will say they want "Entitlement reform", but will be against changing Social Security and Medicare. Not even a majority of people who Identified themselves as Tea Party members wanted to cut either of those. Entitlements are what other people get. Poor people you don't know. Social Security is what your own grandma gets.
So...none of the Rebublican posters have any issues with which your party has conducted itself?
Really?
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
So...none of the Rebublican posters have any issues with which your party has conducted itself?
Really?
I imagine they do a little bit, but they are up against liberals. So most of it is justified.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 05:56:02 PM
I imagine they do a little bit, but they are up against liberals. So most of it is justified.
:frusty:
And so the ship will sink.
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
Well, next time your boys can burn the house down completely with a full-on default and you'll be ecstatic.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
So...none of the Rebublican posters have any issues with which your party has conducted itself?
Really?
Who here actually identifies as a Republican? Derspiess, Strix, and Garbon--and I'm not too sure about the first 2.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
Well, next time your boys can burn the house down completely with a full-on default and you'll be ecstatic.
What are you babbling about?
Quote from: dps on August 06, 2011, 07:07:00 PM
Who here actually identifies as a Republican? Derspiess, Strix, and Garbon--and I'm not too sure about the first 2.
Yeah although mine's more an affectation as I've always voted as a social liberal on ballot measures and I've always lived in places where voting Republican is little more than a protest measure. :blush:
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 07:09:20 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
Well, next time your boys can burn the house down completely with a full-on default and you'll be ecstatic.
What are you babbling about?
I mean, look who it is. :)
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 04:55:23 PM
Obama supported the Simpson deficit reduction plan before then, no?
All I heard from Obama after the Simpson Boyles report came out was that deficit reduction was a very important task but that in the short term the recovery was too fragile for any reductions in spending, although making millionaires and billionares pay their fair share would have the benefit of reducing the deficit. Then Obama's last important legislative act before the GOP grabbed the majority in the House was to push through an extension of the Bush tax cuts, an extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, and (I think) an extension of the payroll tax reduction.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 04:56:08 PM
Standard and Poor.
6.2 billion over ten years. Would S&P have found that adequate?
Trillion, not billion. I'm guessing they would have found it considerably more adequate than 2 trillion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 04:55:23 PM
Obama supported the Simpson deficit reduction plan before then, no?
All I heard from Obama after the Simpson Boyles report came out was that deficit reduction was a very important task but that in the short term the recovery was too fragile for any reductions in spending, although making millionaires and billionares pay their fair share would have the benefit of reducing the deficit. Then Obama's last important legislative act before the GOP grabbed the majority in the House was to push through an extension of the Bush tax cuts, an extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, and (I think) an extension of the payroll tax reduction.
And given your comments, those are tax cuts the Republicans want eliminated to pay for the deficit, right?
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxunderground.com%2Fforum%2Ffile.php%3F40%2Cfile%3D37004%2Cfilename%3D13036663423.jpg&hash=9fb522088fe11eef2ae406888e2b447964a06533)
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
So...none of the Rebublican posters have any issues with which your party has conducted itself?
Really?
I am technically still a Republican by virtue of the fuckups at the Johnston County auditor's office who failed to process my request for a change of party from Republican to Independent.
And I have issues with the way Republicans have conducted themselves.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 07:19:58 PM
And given your comments, those are tax cuts the Republicans want eliminated to pay for the deficit, right?
And what the fuck does that have to do with Obama's support for deficit reduction?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 07:20:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
I am with Yi. I think without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxunderground.com%2Fforum%2Ffile.php%3F40%2Cfile%3D37004%2Cfilename%3D13036663423.jpg&hash=9fb522088fe11eef2ae406888e2b447964a06533)
With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.
Quote from: dps on August 06, 2011, 07:07:00 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
So...none of the Rebublican posters have any issues with which your party has conducted itself?
Really?
Who here actually identifies as a Republican? Derspiess, Strix, and Garbon--and I'm not too sure about the first 2.
We've always had Crypto-Republicans. Sometimes they call themselves Libertarians, sometimes they call themselves moderates, sometimes rationally non-partisan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 07:17:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 04:56:08 PM
Standard and Poor.
6.2 billion over ten years. Would S&P have found that adequate?
Trillion, not billion. I'm guessing they would have found it considerably more adequate than 2 trillion.
Adequate enough to avoid the downgrade? Do you honestly believe that Congress will hold through with a budget plan that goes to 2030 (when the plan projects a balanced budget).
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 07:37:43 PM
Adequate enough to avoid the downgrade? Do you honestly believe that Congress will hold through with a budget plan that goes to 2030 (when the plan projects a balanced budget).
Let me give the boys at S&P a quick call to see if 6.2 would have been enough. Or you could do it yourself.
How the fuck am I supposed to know Raz?
Not sure I understand the logic behind the second question. No, we can't guarantee that future Congresses will not undo everything that has been done. They could increase monthly Social Security payments to a billion dollars a person and reduce taxes to minus infinity plus two.
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
Quote from: mongers on August 06, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
Yes. I take back what I said about hegemony the other day.
Quote from: mongers on August 06, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
That's all well and good but there is nobody able to take the lead at this time. China does not have anywhere near the power you seem to want to give them.
The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted. Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted. Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Rutherford B. Hayes: history's greatest monster?
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Your history is confused. We went through a civil war because of budgetary arguments?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 07:37:43 PM
Adequate enough to avoid the downgrade? Do you honestly believe that Congress will hold through with a budget plan that goes to 2030 (when the plan projects a balanced budget).
Let me give the boys at S&P a quick call to see if 6.2 would have been enough. Or you could do it yourself.
How the fuck am I supposed to know Raz?
Not sure I understand the logic behind the second question. No, we can't guarantee that future Congresses will not undo everything that has been done. They could increase monthly Social Security payments to a billion dollars a person and reduce taxes to minus infinity plus two.
See it just doesn't seem coincidental that they downgraded the US a few days after the huge debt ceiling fight ended. I suspect it might be related.
Let me second question another way. Has congress ever kept a budget plan for
two decades with out changing it?
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted. Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Well, look at the bright side. You already have experience moving to a new country when the old one collapsed.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 09:13:46 PM
See it just doesn't seem coincidental that they downgraded the US a few days after the huge debt ceiling fight ended. I suspect it might be related.
Couldn't agree more. They downgraded a few days after the fight ended because it allowed them to know (a) whether we were going to default or not and (b) if we didn't, how much we would cut the deficit.
QuoteLet me second question another way. Has congress ever kept a budget plan for two decades with out changing it?
I would be shocked it it had. If the point you're trying to make is that any changes to the deficit outside the current budget year should be discounted, I agree completely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 07:19:58 PM
And given your comments, those are tax cuts the Republicans want eliminated to pay for the deficit, right?
And what the fuck does that have to do with Obama's support for deficit reduction?
Okay, a few thoughts.
First, the GOP is opposed to any revenue increases, so it's hard to see why anyone should take their claims for deficit reduction seriously. Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.
Second, this is more on point, but I admit less clear, Obama initially opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts, but faced with the Republican block didn't really have a choice. So...
Finally, this is in regards to the brinkmanship issue: You know how you could support deficit reduction without threatening financial armageddon? When you voted on the damn spending bills to begin with.
I mean, we know that the GOP prioritizes low tax cuts over deficit reduction because Obama offered Boehner a significantly greater program:
Quotebama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 07:31:52 PM
With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 09:39:05 PM
Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.
You forgot about the part where they permanently eliminated revenue streams in those 8 years. Permanently. As in, that money's never going to come back.
Quote from: mongers on August 06, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
At least we possess the elasticity to right the ship over time; I bet the Chinese don't.
The Chinese house of cards is built on graft, corruption and government manipulation to such an extent, it makes Congress' fingerbanging with Wall Street look like a 7th grade ice cream mixer.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2011, 09:39:05 PM
Okay, a few thoughts.
First, the GOP is opposed to any revenue increases, so it's hard to see why anyone should take their claims for deficit reduction seriously. Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.
What does this even mean? Do you think if Obama had caved in to the Ryan plan the bond market and the rating companies would have said to themselves this 6.2 trillion dollar reduction in the deficit is not a serious? You're treating this as a PR excercise, if only people disliked the Republicans more then we wouldn't have lost our AAA.
QuoteSecond, this is more on point, but I admit less clear, Obama initially opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts, but faced with the Republican block didn't really have a choice. So...
You're off a little on your political catch phrases. The Bush tax cuts were for all income brackets. The ones Obama opposed extending were the "Bush tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires." It was his idea to "not raise taxes on hard-working middle class Americans." I.e. extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.
QuoteFinally, this is in regards to the brinkmanship issue: You know how you could support deficit reduction without threatening financial armageddon? When you voted on the damn spending bills to begin with.
They voted on the damn spending bills to begin with. The House passed the Ryan plan. The Senate did not. So no appropriations.
Now what?
QuoteI mean, we know that the GOP prioritizes low tax cuts over deficit reduction because Obama offered Boehner a significantly greater program:
Quotebama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html
Agreed. I was furious when they turned that down.
But the fact remains that Obama never would have come up with that proposal if the GOP had not started warming up the ICBMs.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 09:13:46 PM
Let me second question another way. Has congress ever kept a budget plan for two decades with out changing it?
The question isn't whether or not the plan will be kept to- the question is whether the plan will grind to a screeching halt or show enough quick positives to become a political snowball for future administrations to definitively cut fat from the budget.
I appreciate the sentiments behind calling for entitlement reform, but almost to the individual, they're refusing to account for the human element- people in power don't tend to think of their power as entitlement enough; they tend to view it as a "responsibility" and expect further compensation for the "chores" they take on. There are a lot of psychological and social factors that need to be addressed before we can get congress to dismantle the sandcastles it's built.
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/08/06/after-us-downgrade-this-could-get-ugly/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/08/06/after-us-downgrade-this-could-get-ugly/)
Quote
After US Downgrade, This Could Get Ugly
By Kenneth Rapoza
Major economic history is being made over the last 24 hours. The saga of the US losing its AAA credit rating continues...
Reuters is reporting that Finance Ministers from the US and its G-7 partners will hold a number of conference calls Sunday to discuss US debt in light of Standard and Poors' decision to downgrade US debt. The European Central Bank will also hold an emergency meeting on Sunday about its own sovereign debt crisis in Italy, Greece, Portugal and possibly Spain as this major credit crisis develops.
"I think we are in treacherous waters. What are France and Britian (and G7) going to discuss this weekend? They used to hold dollars. They were looking to us to solve our problems and lead by example and we just got downgraded," says Joel Smolen, fund manager at Axion Capital in San Rafael, Calif. "Where else are they going to turn?"
The ECBs policy-setting council will hold a rare Sunday conference call to talk its own in-house problems, Reuters reported on Saturday.
Markets were marginally hopefully on Friday that the ECB would act as a back stop to buy Italian bonds to stabilize prices. It also said it would buy Spanish bonds as government bond prices in both countries decline due to a sell-off in the default wary sovereign debt markets. To make matters worse, Standard and Poor's downgraded US sovereign credit after market hours on Friday to AA+ from AAA. It is the first time in the history that the US has ever been downgraded. In world markets, US debt is essentially the gold standard. It is now at least slightly tarnished and the market will clearly change its perspective on US debt as a result of the country's budget deficits and growing debt burden.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who heads the G20 group of the world's leading economies, will discuss the financial situation in light of the US downgrade with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday evening, his office told Reuters.
Finance ministers and central bankers of the G7 group of major industrialized nations will confer by telephone on Saturday or Sunday, a senior European diplomatic source said. Their deputies from the broader G20 were due to hold a call on Saturday evening, a Brazilian finance ministry source said.
As expected, the debt downgrade is serious business and calls into question the role of the US dollar as the lead world reserve currency.
The American investing public is the largest holder of US debt through mainly through fixed income and money market accounts.
I can imagine an Asian country freaking out over getting an AA+ instead of an AAA, but this is America. We would be perfectly happy with a C.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 07:31:52 PM
With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
The credit rating did not drop because of the brinksmanship, it fell because despite the brinksmanship, congress still did not do squat to address the basic problem.
Talk about drinking kool-aid, you can't get enough of the standard BS out of the left. Blame the rich, if only they paid more taxes, we wouldn't be in this mess, no matter how much we spend.
The tea party refused to raise taxes, but the latte left refuses to address spending in any real way. The combination is, of course, a fucking disaster. Thanks a lot, radical dumbasses who care more about making sure the other guy loses than making sure we all win.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
[/quote]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 09:24:09 PM
I would be shocked it it had. If the point you're trying to make is that any changes to the deficit outside the current budget year should be discounted, I agree completely.
My plan is the that having any faith in a plan that isn't going to be carried out will likely be forgotten within a year is stupid. I don't understand why you have this hard on for the Ryan plan. It would be more pragmatic for Congress to mount an expedition to find King Solomon's mines and bring back six trillion dollars in diamonds then push for a plan to balance the budget by 2030. At least finding diamonds is plausible.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 11:11:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 07:31:52 PM
With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
The credit rating did not drop because of the brinksmanship, it fell because despite the brinksmanship, congress still did not do squat to address the basic problem.
Talk about drinking kool-aid, you can't get enough of the standard BS out of the left. Blame the rich, if only they paid more taxes, we wouldn't be in this mess, no matter how much we spend.
The tea party refused to raise taxes, but the latte left refuses to address spending in any real way. The combination is, of course, a fucking disaster. Thanks a lot, radical dumbasses who care more about making sure the other guy loses than making sure we all win.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
[/quote]
As far as I know, many Democrats have supported spending cuts and actually voted for that. How many Republicans have supported Tax increases and voted for them? In your mind Democrats not giving in sufficiently is equal to or worse then Republicans not budging and inch.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 11:29:23 PM
As far as I know, many Democrats have supported spending cuts and actually voted for that. How many Republicans have supported Tax increases and voted for them? In your mind Democrats not giving in sufficiently is equal to or worse then Republicans not budging and inch.
Not at all what I've been saying - I think the fact that the Republican non-crazies have all been beaten into submission by the crazies into this "No new taxes" bullshit is considerably worse than the Dems, in fact. But it is the Dem nutjobs who refused to show any restraint when they had power, refused to act resposibly when they had the chance, that led to the rise of the right wing counter-nutjobs. Pelosi and Co. seemed to think that the answer to any and all economic questions was "spend more money" and they did so, and excoriated their own moderates who refused to go along for the ride.
How often did we get to listen to the Languish representatives of the nutwing left curse and bitch about blue Dog traitors? Well, those Blue Dog moderates got hung out to dry for their refusal to go along, and got replaced by nutjob Republicans.
No Raz, I do not at all think the Dems are equal to or worse, but only because of the tactics that have gotten us here, not because there is anything particularly more principled about them. The Dems had a chance to do the right thing when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Instead they chose to use the economic crisis as a carte blanche to go on a spending spree and now we are only *beginning* to pay for the consequences of that. Well, that is a little over-stated, we are beginning to pay for the consequences of MUCH more than just that of course.
Quote from: citizen k on August 06, 2011, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Your history is confused. We went through a civil war because of budgetary arguments?
The cultural conflict is between the socially backwards people and somewhat saner people elsewhere. The budgetary arguments are just a sideshow tacked on to the cultural war, to make 50 percent of the country agree to measures that benefit 2 percent of the country. The oligarchs have long agp discovered that if you feign interest in the socially backward issues, you can get the socially backward people to whole-heartedly support economic measures that directly hurt them.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:39:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 06, 2011, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.
Your history is confused. We went through a civil war because of budgetary arguments?
The cultural conflict is between the socially backwards people and somewhat saner people elsewhere. The budgetary arguments are just a sideshow tacked on to the cultural war, to make 50 percent of the country agree to measures that benefit 2 percent of the country. The oligarchs have long agp discovered that if you feign interest in the socially backward issues, you can get the socially backward people to whole-heartedly support economic measures that directly hurt them.
Your arrogance truly is breathtaking.
If only the stupid people were not so stupid, they would all think like you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 11:26:17 PM
My plan is the that having any faith in a plan that isn't going to be carried out will likely be forgotten within a year is stupid. I don't understand why you have this hard on for the Ryan plan. It would be more pragmatic for Congress to mount an expedition to find King Solomon's mines and bring back six trillion dollars in diamonds then push for a plan to balance the budget by 2030. At least finding diamonds is plausible.
So to borrow your logic, since Bush rolled back Clinton's tax hikes we shouldn't have had faith in Clinton's tax hikes? Of course people in the future can make bad decisons that undo the good good decisions you have made. That doesn't reduce the desirability of making good decisions in the present. Then a year passes and we continue to push for good decisions. MIM has mentioned the desirability of front-loading deficit reduction (or at least of not back-loading). I agree with him. But you seem to be taking the position that since nothing is guaranteed we should throw up our hands and wish for the best.
I have a hardon for Ryan for three reasons. His plan got the ball rolling on deficit reduction. He touched the third rail. And his plan was a big, serious number.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 11:40:53 PM
Your arrogance truly is breathtaking.
If only the stupid people were not so stupid, they would all think like you.
Equivocation is for those without balls. I don't think that if stupid people were not so stupid, the would think like me. I'm more than just not stupid, I'm quite incredibly intelligent. However, if stupid people were not so stupid, they would not believe in stupid things that are easily disprovable by facts and reasoning.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 11:38:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 11:29:23 PM
As far as I know, many Democrats have supported spending cuts and actually voted for that. How many Republicans have supported Tax increases and voted for them? In your mind Democrats not giving in sufficiently is equal to or worse then Republicans not budging and inch.
Not at all what I've been saying - I think the fact that the Republican non-crazies have all been beaten into submission by the crazies into this "No new taxes" bullshit is considerably worse than the Dems, in fact. But it is the Dem nutjobs who refused to show any restraint when they had power, refused to act resposibly when they had the chance, that led to the rise of the right wing counter-nutjobs. Pelosi and Co. seemed to think that the answer to any and all economic questions was "spend more money" and they did so, and excoriated their own moderates who refused to go along for the ride.
How often did we get to listen to the Languish representatives of the nutwing left curse and bitch about blue Dog traitors? Well, those Blue Dog moderates got hung out to dry for their refusal to go along, and got replaced by nutjob Republicans.
No Raz, I do not at all think the Dems are equal to or worse, but only because of the tactics that have gotten us here, not because there is anything particularly more principled about them. The Dems had a chance to do the right thing when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Instead they chose to use the economic crisis as a carte blanche to go on a spending spree and now we are only *beginning* to pay for the consequences of that. Well, that is a little over-stated, we are beginning to pay for the consequences of MUCH more than just that of course.
So Democrats not only are responsible for the debt, but for the rise of the stupidity in the GOP? wow. That's pretty amazing.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:39:14 PM
The cultural conflict is between the socially backwards people and somewhat saner people elsewhere. The budgetary arguments are just a sideshow tacked on to the cultural war, to make 50 percent of the country agree to measures that benefit 2 percent of the country. The oligarchs have long agp discovered that if you feign interest in the socially backward issues, you can get the socially backward people to whole-heartedly support economic measures that directly hurt them.
Was it the somewhat saner people who were (and in many cases still are) in favor of running 10% deficits for the foreseeable future?
There are worse things to do during a pretty catastrophic recession. Those saner people wouldn't be quite so willing to let Wall Street casino run amok and get us into this mess in the first place, although to be fair, even the saner ones have some blood on their hands when it comes to this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 11:41:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2011, 11:26:17 PM
My plan is the that having any faith in a plan that isn't going to be carried out will likely be forgotten within a year is stupid. I don't understand why you have this hard on for the Ryan plan. It would be more pragmatic for Congress to mount an expedition to find King Solomon's mines and bring back six trillion dollars in diamonds then push for a plan to balance the budget by 2030. At least finding diamonds is plausible.
So to borrow your logic, since Bush rolled back Clinton's tax hikes we shouldn't have had faith in Clinton's tax hikes? Of course people in the future can make bad decisons that undo the good good decisions you have made. That doesn't reduce the desirability of making good decisions in the present. Then a year passes and we continue to push for good decisions. MIM has mentioned the desirability of front-loading deficit reduction (or at least of not back-loading). I agree with him. But you seem to be taking the position that since nothing is guaranteed we should throw up our hands and wish for the best.
I have a hardon for Ryan for three reasons. His plan got the ball rolling on deficit reduction. He touched the third rail. And his plan was a big, serious number.
2030 is not a serious number. What third rail did he touch here? Did he offer to raise taxes? Didn't his plan also have a limit on how much you could sue for malpractice? What the hell does that do? That's the kind of rider you put on a bill when you want to sink it.
What I'm saying is that you know they won't follow through with a plan that lasts decades. Three years? Sure. Five years maybe. Twenty years, no. When you try to pass something like that it means you are trying to look like you are doing something, but not actually doing something. I'm honestly surprised you buy into that kind of thing.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:44:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 11:40:53 PM
Your arrogance truly is breathtaking.
If only the stupid people were not so stupid, they would all think like you.
Equivocation is for those without balls.
Who said anything about equivocation? I said you were arrogant. Being arrogant doesn't mean you have balls, it just means you don't think very clearly. Probably because you spend so much time playing with your balls.
Quote
I don't think that if stupid people were not so stupid, the would think like me. I'm more than just not stupid, I'm quite incredibly intelligent.
What you don't get is that it is possible for other people to be intelligent, and yet NOT think like you, and for perfectly good reasons.
Quote
However, if stupid people were not so stupid, they would not believe in stupid things that are easily disprovable by facts and reasoning.
And if people like you were not so arrogant, they wouldn't think that they don't have to think at all.
You equivocate when you say that stupid people have a good reason for being stupid. No, they don't, stupidity isn't a good reason.
Intelligent people can have different opinions than I do; however, typically those intelligent can provide defensible arguments for why they think differently. The people that I imply are stupid cannot, hence why I have open disdain for them.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:51:30 PM
There are worse things to do during a pretty catastrophic recession. Those saner people wouldn't be quite so willing to let Wall Street casino run amok and get us into this mess in the first place, although to be fair, even the saner ones have some blood on their hands when it comes to this.
As you type this, teh casino is getting ready to destroy billions in wealth.
Quote from: mongers on August 06, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
You know, when we go down, we'll take them with us. Their economic rise is dependent on selling us stuff. Their type of political structure is not very flexible, if the last twenty years have taught us anything. The US will survive an economic collapse. The PRC? A bit more shaky. Of course, a change of government could be very, very good for them. On the other hand, it could just be like Russia. Incidentally, we'll drag Europe down as well, just like we did in '29. So I wouldn't look forward to this if I were you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 11:11:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2011, 07:31:52 PM
With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
The credit rating did not drop because of the brinksmanship, it fell because despite the brinksmanship, congress still did not do squat to address the basic problem.
Talk about drinking kool-aid, you can't get enough of the standard BS out of the left. Blame the rich, if only they paid more taxes, we wouldn't be in this mess, no matter how much we spend.
The tea party refused to raise taxes, but the latte left refuses to address spending in any real way. The combination is, of course, a fucking disaster. Thanks a lot, radical dumbasses who care more about making sure the other guy loses than making sure we all win.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
[/quote]
There are two truths here: the credit rating would not have dropped if the ceiling was raised without the GOP threatening to shut down the government, and you still can't crop for shit.
Now go buy more gold, Bagger.
Will America lash out in its death throes or will it go gentle into that good night?
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:51:30 PM
There are worse things to do during a pretty catastrophic recession.
Five more years of the status quo would have put us in Greece's position.
Won't some of the posters who are defending Obama's excellent record on deficit reduction join in with me and tell DGuller how important it is?
It's been 3 years now, I think we can say that this is far more than a mere recession. It seems to me that we are looking at low growth for developed economies for the forseeable future. So, a bit like Japan for the past 25 years. Anyone who wants governments to keep on borrowing vast amounts needs to outline where rapid future growth will come from. Without that growth, which I think will not happen, we are simply living beyond our means.
You know the Italian deficit is not even that high by current standards, about 4.8% of GDP IIRC, but their economy has been asleep for at least a decade with miniscule growth. It will probably stagnate or even shrink for at least another decade, which is why their debts are so scary.
Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2011, 11:39:14 PM
The cultural conflict is between the socially backwards people and somewhat saner people elsewhere.
That's a problem across the ages.
It's dusk for the Western World.
Quote from: mongers on August 06, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?
Meh, who cares. I used to get upset about this, but then I realized that the Brits seem pretty happy. Living under a microscope gets old.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2011, 03:22:54 AM
It's been 3 years now, I think we can say that this is far more than a mere recession. It seems to me that we are looking at low growth for developed economies for the forseeable future.
I, for one, welcome our new extra-galactic overlords who are going to provide us with amazing technology that will create all necessary material goods out of thin air so we can all shuck responsibility and live in a new utopian world order where puppies poo rainbows and we have universal peace and harmony. :area52:
The downgrade to the US rating was inevitable unless the US government both cut spending and increased revenues. When government spending is 25% of GDP and income is 14% of GDP, cutting spending, even heavily (to, say, 20% of GDP) just doesn't answer.
Not even a super genius math whiz like DGuller claims to be can make 14 = 25. Not even Dan Ryan can do that with his Emerald City Plan.
The US might have been downgraded even without the debt ceiling antics, but the main result has been to destroy the image of US as an invulnerable bastion for your money. And in a world that seems more concerned by perception than actual numbers, that is something that you might come to regret.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 07, 2011, 04:30:07 PM
The US might have been downgraded even without the debt ceiling antics, but the main result has been to destroy the image of US as an invulnerable bastion for your money. And in a world that seems more concerned by perception than actual numbers, that is something that you might come to regret.
As might you. :lol:
Nah, I'll be too busy banging my head against the wall as I see my country driven down by one moron after another.
Relax.
Take it eeeeeeeaa-eeeeea-sy.
Quote from: The Brain on August 07, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
Take it eeeeeeeaa-eeeeea-sy.
These young people today are prone to panic. Not manly at all.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 07, 2011, 04:52:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 07, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
Take it eeeeeeeaa-eeeeea-sy.
These young people today are prone to panic. Not manly at all.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_CpUq8l3LoMQ%2FTQJYocF3ymI%2FAAAAAAAAAOQ%2FsV2eq5LLX1A%2Fs400%2Fkeep%2Bcalm%2B1.jpg&hash=38143b5885092969c017c5d45752d138c2785171)
Quote from: Iormlund on August 07, 2011, 04:43:53 PM
Nah, I'll be too busy banging my head against the wall as I see my country driven down by one moron after another.
I feel your pain. :hug:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2011, 03:22:54 AM
It's been 3 years now, I think we can say that this is far more than a mere recession. It seems to me that we are looking at low growth for developed economies for the forseeable future. So, a bit like Japan for the past 25 years. Anyone who wants governments to keep on borrowing vast amounts needs to outline where rapid future growth will come from. Without that growth, which I think will not happen, we are simply living beyond our means.
You know the Italian deficit is not even that high by current standards, about 4.8% of GDP IIRC, but their economy has been asleep for at least a decade with miniscule growth. It will probably stagnate or even shrink for at least another decade, which is why their debts are so scary.
I dunno. I hate to gloat, but the Canadian economy (and Alberta in particular) is doing great. :cool:
Canada sells raw ressources to whatever imperial power happens to be around. We are simply digging deeper, and farther now than before.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 07, 2011, 06:17:31 PM
Canada sells raw ressources to whatever imperial power happens to be around. We are simply digging deeper, and farther now than before.
Yes - that is a large part of why we are doing so well. So? My point still stands. :cool:
(the other part being generally good financial balance sheets for both government and consumers)
We shall see. Maybe being a big resources exporter will spare Canada from the bulk of the problems. I agree that, in general, Canada has done well in the areas of fiscal and finacial discipline.
(Though your current budget deficit is 3.8% of GDP, which would have been considered appalling until very recently :D )
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
If I need someone to beat a nigger's head in with a collapsible tactical baton I know where to look, but obviously you're not a good place to turn for reasoned analysis on the economy.
While S&P certainly mentioned the political gridlock over the decision to raise the debt ceiling in their analysis, my actual reading of it suggests our long term projected debt-to-GDP ratio and the fact that even after months of political wrangling we only got a $2tn / 10 year deficit reduction showed them we were not moving in a good place in regards to debt long term.
If S&P isn't totally lying about why they downgraded us, then Obama's plan to just get a rubber stamp approval with no deficit reduction at all (that was his position before everything began) would arguably have still lead to this and possibly more with the other two agencies joining in. The market and these agencies were expecting deficit reduction before the ceiling was raised, that had been known as what was going to happen ever since the budget was approved and there was talk about focusing on spending cuts come debt-ceiling renewal time. If the GOP had just rubber stamped the raising of the debt ceiling with no reduction in long term spending at all, I genuinely think the markets and ratings agencies would have responded worse than they have so far.
I will say of course the GOP had an opportunity to get "100% of what they wanted" if they had agreed to the $4tn deficit reduction plan that Obama had on the table at one point.
Quote from: Barrister on August 07, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Yes - that is a large part of why we are doing so well. So? My point still stands. :cool:
(the other part being generally good financial balance sheets for both government and consumers)
Sure. But I felt the fact that we are simply selling unprocessed stuff to others kinda reduced the "merit" aspect which generally comes with gloating.
I would be much more impressed if the Canadian economy reduced economic disparity between its citizens.
Quote from: Barrister on August 07, 2011, 06:12:49 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2011, 03:22:54 AM
It's been 3 years now, I think we can say that this is far more than a mere recession. It seems to me that we are looking at low growth for developed economies for the forseeable future. So, a bit like Japan for the past 25 years. Anyone who wants governments to keep on borrowing vast amounts needs to outline where rapid future growth will come from. Without that growth, which I think will not happen, we are simply living beyond our means.
You know the Italian deficit is not even that high by current standards, about 4.8% of GDP IIRC, but their economy has been asleep for at least a decade with miniscule growth. It will probably stagnate or even shrink for at least another decade, which is why their debts are so scary.
I dunno. I hate to gloat, but the Canadian economy (and Alberta in particular) is doing great. :cool:
And here is Beeb doing his Canuck douchbag bit. Don't ever change baby.
Well tomorrow will be an interesting day at the markets to be sure.
It is too bad that we take the downgrade as an opportunity to bash the rating agencies. Not that they are shining beacons of light, but it is one of the first refuges of the insolvent. It is similar to the blaming of everything on short sellers when AIG and Greece started to go down (among many others).
Who's bashing the rating agencies?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Who's bashing the rating agencies?
I think maybe AR is. It isn't clear why he would be raising the issue otherwise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Who's bashing the rating agencies?
I've read a bunch of stuff bashing S&P.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2011, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Who's bashing the rating agencies?
I think maybe AR is. It isn't clear why he would be raising the issue otherwise.
I'm not--I'm just commenting that I think the bashing is poor form.
Let's blame foreigners instead. After all, they can't be trusted.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
I'm not--I'm just commenting that I think the bashing is poor form.
Outside stuff? I haven't seen it, but am not surprised. I agree that anyone who thinks the problem lies in the rating agencies is deluding him/her self.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2011, 08:09:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
I'm not--I'm just commenting that I think the bashing is poor form.
Outside stuff? I haven't seen it, but am not surprised. I agree that anyone who thinks the problem lies in the rating agencies is deluding him/her self.
Here is an article with unnamed people in the treasury department complaining about "amateur hour" and some sharp comments from Barney Frank.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/05/SP-lowers-US-credit-rating/UPI-63661312591495/
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2011, 08:11:21 PM
Here is an article with unnamed people in the treasury department complaining about "amateur hour" and some sharp comments from Barney Frank.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/05/SP-lowers-US-credit-rating/UPI-63661312591495/
:lol:
I just saw this from the man at the top:
The credit rating agency Standard & Poor's showed "terrible judgment" in lowering the U.S. government's credit rating, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Sunday.
"They've handled themselves very poorly. And they've shown a stunning lack of knowledge about the basic U.S. fiscal budget math," Geithner said in his first public comments about the credit rating decision.
...
Geithner alluded to those problems in his interview Sunday, saying about the credit agencies: "Look at the quality of judgments they've made in the past."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Geithner-SP-showed-terrible-apf-713857951.html?x=0
Quote from: Legbiter on August 06, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
Good job, Rebublicans. :showoff:
You could give these assclowns Switzerland and they'd turn it into Somalia in three months.
Well, they argue that government is the problem - and then they do their darndest to ensure that it's true.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2011, 08:11:21 PM
Here is an article with unnamed people in the treasury department complaining about "amateur hour" and some sharp comments from Barney Frank.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/05/SP-lowers-US-credit-rating/UPI-63661312591495/
A whole lotta nothin' in that story, and Frank makes Cantor look like Einstein, so no surprises from him, either.
How does Frank stay on the Financial Services Comittee, anyway? This is the man who thought every executive's contract bonuses should just be abrogated outright; him calling anything S&P does "amateurish" is, at best, the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 07, 2011, 06:27:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.
You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing. Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.
Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.
If I need someone to beat a nigger's head in with a collapsible tactical baton I know where to look, but obviously you're not a good place to turn for reasoned analysis on the economy.
While S&P certainly mentioned the political gridlock over the decision to raise the debt ceiling in their analysis, my actual reading of it suggests our long term projected debt-to-GDP ratio and the fact that even after months of political wrangling we only got a $2tn / 10 year deficit reduction showed them we were not moving in a good place in regards to debt long term.
If S&P isn't totally lying about why they downgraded us, then Obama's plan to just get a rubber stamp approval with no deficit reduction at all (that was his position before everything began) would arguably have still lead to this and possibly more with the other two agencies joining in. The market and these agencies were expecting deficit reduction before the ceiling was raised, that had been known as what was going to happen ever since the budget was approved and there was talk about focusing on spending cuts come debt-ceiling renewal time. If the GOP had just rubber stamped the raising of the debt ceiling with no reduction in long term spending at all, I genuinely think the markets and ratings agencies would have responded worse than they have so far.
I will say of course the GOP had an opportunity to get "100% of what they wanted" if they had agreed to the $4tn deficit reduction plan that Obama had on the table at one point.
Oh, bullshit. It's a confidence game. If it had gone through without the Tea Party histrionics, we'd all still be talking about Casey Anthony right now.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 07, 2011, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 07, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Yes - that is a large part of why we are doing so well. So? My point still stands. :cool:
(the other part being generally good financial balance sheets for both government and consumers)
Sure. But I felt the fact that we are simply selling unprocessed stuff to others kinda reduced the "merit" aspect which generally comes with gloating.
I would be much more impressed if the Canadian economy reduced economic disparity between its citizens.
The entire world's economy is going to hell in a handbasket. I point out that Canada is actually doing well - and you're 'not impressed'?
I'm so sorry you're not impressed with Canada's economic performance. But since everyone I know can find work, stay in their home, and be fairly productive, I dare say we're doing pretty well.
Canada's doing just fine because she's hiding and hoping nobody's going to notice her.
Hey BB, is it a conflict of interest in your position to sponsor a visa applicant, by chance?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2011, 12:19:58 AM
Canada's doing just fine because she's hiding and hoping nobody's going to notice her.
Hey BB, is it a conflict of interest in your position to sponsor a visa applicant, by chance?
I dunno - you know anyone willing to be a live-in nanny? Child care is expensive north of 49...
:pinch:
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2011, 01:02:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2011, 12:19:58 AM
Canada's doing just fine because she's hiding and hoping nobody's going to notice her.
Hey BB, is it a conflict of interest in your position to sponsor a visa applicant, by chance?
I dunno - you know anyone willing to be a live-in nanny? Child care is expensive north of 49...
Nanny CdM?
I'm sure I've seen that movie.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2011, 12:16:33 AM
The entire world's economy is going to hell in a handbasket. I point out that Canada is actually doing well - and you're 'not impressed'?
I'm so sorry you're not impressed with Canada's economic performance. But since everyone I know can find work, stay in their home, and be fairly productive, I dare say we're doing pretty well.
Yeah, well we can't all decide to become Saudi Arabia or Russia.
Sweden is doing OK. :)
That means HK has a higher credit rating than the US :lol:
It's laughable that the conservatives are claiming that the recent downgrade is unrelated to debt ceiling fight. They knew full well what not raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner would do. If they didn't it wouldn't make sense to use it to blackmail the president or as they say "hold President Obama accountable". Accountable for what or to what is anyone's guess.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 08, 2011, 03:12:05 AM
That means HK has a higher credit rating than the US :lol:
Big whoop. So does the socialist paradise of Sweden.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2011, 01:02:48 AM
I dunno - you know anyone willing to be a live-in nanny? Child care is expensive north of 49...
Sign me up. Though I don't actively like children, I've never knowingly shaken one.
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2011, 01:02:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2011, 12:19:58 AM
Canada's doing just fine because she's hiding and hoping nobody's going to notice her.
Hey BB, is it a conflict of interest in your position to sponsor a visa applicant, by chance?
I dunno - you know anyone willing to be a live-in nanny? Child care is expensive north of 49...
I could be a nanny. I'm actually good with children, due to my child like nature. Actually now that I think of it, my little sis would be good for the job as well. She worked at a daycare for a while (though she is unemployed at the moment due to her living up in Wisconsin in a town of less then 300 people).
The dollar is up against the euro after the downgrade.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 05:19:48 AM
The dollar is up against the euro after the downgrade.
Both are down relative to other currencies like the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen, however. Moreover, both are suffering, though the Euro is just suffering more than the dollar.
There's not much for America to learn from countries with small populations and relatively small economies like Canada and Norway; those countries both can be disproportionately buoyed by relatively minor natural resource boons. I mean, the United States could find an oil field equivalent to the Albertan tar sands and it still would not meaningfully turn our economy around, our economy is so vast that it would only give us a minor bump and not come close to solving our problems.
I mean, Canada's economy is about the size of California's on a good day. If you want to look at individual U.S. States many of them have had major fiscal turnarounds in the past decade as well, but none of them have as complicated or as large a mess as the Federal government so it is intrinsically easier for them to solve their problems. Solving the fiscal problems of the United States Federal Gov't is equivalent if not greater in difficulty as the EU solving its collective problems, which as observes will note has been a very difficult process.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2011, 03:58:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 08, 2011, 01:02:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2011, 12:19:58 AM
Canada's doing just fine because she's hiding and hoping nobody's going to notice her.
Hey BB, is it a conflict of interest in your position to sponsor a visa applicant, by chance?
I dunno - you know anyone willing to be a live-in nanny? Child care is expensive north of 49...
I could be a nanny. I'm actually good with children, due to my child like nature. Actually now that I think of it, my little sis would be good for the job as well. She worked at a daycare for a while (though she is unemployed at the moment due to her living up in Wisconsin in a town of less then 300 people).
I am ready and able to help out all able-bodied US women, via marriage for greencard :contract:
My sis is already married. Although rats ass Wisconsin is pretty crappy, it's a damn sight better then goulash land. I mean, a mysterious red sludge hasn't simply appeared and devoured towns up there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 08, 2011, 06:43:08 AM
There's not much for America to learn from countries with small populations and relatively small economies like Canada and Norway; those countries both can be disproportionately buoyed by relatively minor natural resource boons.
Mmm. Canada is small, but let's not pretend it's Norway. It's got the 9th largest economy in the world, and energy products are 2.9% of its GDP. The service sector and manufacturing together account for something like 94% of the Canadian economy.
So, perhaps there's more to it than "they got lucky thanks to Alberta tar."
None of you are nanny material. Nannies are cute ex-cheerleaders, not Languish crazies.
STAY OUT OF THE HIRING POOL.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 08, 2011, 07:51:44 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 08, 2011, 06:43:08 AM
There's not much for America to learn from countries with small populations and relatively small economies like Canada and Norway; those countries both can be disproportionately buoyed by relatively minor natural resource boons.
Mmm. Canada is small, but let's not pretend it's Norway. It's got the 9th largest economy in the world, and energy products are 2.9% of its GDP. The service sector and manufacturing together account for something like 94% of the Canadian economy.
So, perhaps there's more to it than "they got lucky thanks to Alberta tar."
No one said that it was all about "getting lucky with Alberta tar" so I agree. Thanks for strawmanning me though you fucking ignorant asswipe.
My point in bringing up the oil sands was that America is so big things like that would be unable to help us. Our politicians are the only ones that can solve our problems and there will not be significant help from any natural resource booms. Your GDP numbers are also a bit deceptive, because large scale natural resource extraction creates huge numbers of service sector and manufacturing jobs to support the work and workers in the field.
The problems Canada faced over a decade ago when they began reforming are very dissimilar to ours. Our armed forces are involved heavily around the world, we spend more in a year on our military than Canada spends on its entire government. On a percentage of GDP level we also have one of the highest rates in the world outside of military dictatorships. I 100% support us ending our role as world cop, but it is such a huge part of out economy it will have some negatives just downsizing the military. If we went back to Clinton era spending on defense (inflation adjusted) the numbers I have seen suggest that reduces the deficit by around 1t over ten years, so that is definitely a significant piece wholly absent from Canada's situation.
Finally until our President becomes an elected dictator ala Westminster style PMs the political calculus of any reform is more akin to what the EU has to go through than what Canada did.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 08, 2011, 07:56:21 AM
None of you are nanny material. Nannies are cute ex-cheerleaders, not Languish crazies.
STAY OUT OF THE HIRING POOL.
:yes:
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 08, 2011, 06:23:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 05:19:48 AM
The dollar is up against the euro after the downgrade.
Both are down relative to other currencies like the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen, however. Moreover, both are suffering, though the Euro is just suffering more than the dollar.
The USD is up against not just the euro but also the pound, the aussie dollar, and the loonie. We are down against the swiss franc and yen. If the downgrade was significant I'd expect a lot more negativity.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 09:05:07 AM
The USD is up against not just the euro but also the pound, the aussie dollar, and the loonie. We are down against the swiss franc and yen. If the downgrade was significant I'd expect a lot more negativity.
All of those currencies are doing quite badly at the moment. As for negativity, well stock markets are down ~2% throughout the USA and Europe today despite a positive reaction to the purchasing of Spanish and Italian bonds by the ECB.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2011, 07:14:12 AM
My sis is already married. Although rats ass Wisconsin is pretty crappy, it's a damn sight better then goulash land. I mean, a mysterious red sludge hasn't simply appeared and devoured towns up there.
That's because Steve McQueen defeated it with his ruggedness.
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 08, 2011, 09:21:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 09:05:07 AM
The USD is up against not just the euro but also the pound, the aussie dollar, and the loonie. We are down against the swiss franc and yen. If the downgrade was significant I'd expect a lot more negativity.
All of those currencies are doing quite badly at the moment. As for negativity, well stock markets are down ~2% throughout the USA and Europe today despite a positive reaction to the purchasing of Spanish and Italian bonds by the ECB.
But we've basically named all the major currencies of the world! :D If the USD is behind the swiss franc and the yen, but ahead of the others, I'd think the driver is something other than increased US default risk.
I think the driver of the markets is the spanish and italian situation, which is only partially offset by the ECB.
I think the best evidence of the irrelevance of the downgrade is that interest rates on 10 year treasuries are falling quite a bit this morning.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
I think the best evidence of the irrelevance of the downgrade is that interest rates on 10 year treasuries are falling quite a bit this morning.
It doesn't demonstrate irrelevance, it demonstrates the perversity of the markets.
The downgrade is part of the news generating fear and uncertainty in the financial markets. That prompts a flight to liquidity and perceived safety. But where can you find a a relatively safe and highly liquid investment asset that can absorb a large inflow of cash? US Treasuries are just about the only game in town.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2011, 10:25:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
I think the best evidence of the irrelevance of the downgrade is that interest rates on 10 year treasuries are falling quite a bit this morning.
It doesn't demonstrate irrelevance, it demonstrates the perversity of the markets.
The downgrade is part of the news generating fear and uncertainty in the financial markets. That prompts a flight to liquidity and perceived safety. But where can you find a a relatively safe and highly liquid investment asset that can absorb a large inflow of cash? US Treasuries are just about the only game in town.
So markets are told treasuries have more risk, which scares people, and scared people run to treasuries?
Maybe to an extent, but what seems more likely to me is there are new reasons to believe eurodoom is about to be unleashed on us all, scaring everyone and making treasuries more attractive (and the dollar more attractive than the euro).
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 10:44:52 AM
So markets are told treasuries have more risk, which scares people, and scared people run to treasuries?
Pretty much. The downgrade doesn't in itself change the risk profile of Treasuries, which is still quite solid. But it does reinforce the pre-existing negative sentiment about the economy, because it is now clear that the the US government cannot act as a source of strength for the economy -- the opposite is more likely. Think what would happen if a Lehman-style even occurred now: the federal government would neither have the financial firepower, the political support, or the legal authority to act decisively.
The Euromess is a factor in the negative sense that Euro-sovereigns can't act effectively as an alternative draw for investors seeking more liquidity and less risk. There was no news over the weekend which affected the fundamentals of the Eurosovereigns (other than ECB growing a pair and buying Med debt, which is a net positive for the market).
It's the "all the alternatives are worse" syndrome.
Im keeping my savings in my mattress, where no one can touch it.
Quote from: Josephus on August 08, 2011, 11:22:03 AM
Im keeping my savings in my mattress, where no one can touch it.
Go old school. Cans filled with money buried randomly in your backyard.
Quote from: Josephus on August 08, 2011, 11:22:03 AM
Im keeping my savings in my mattress, where no one can touch it.
A neighbor of my grandparents did that and her house burnt down twice. :(
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2011, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 08, 2011, 11:22:03 AM
Im keeping my savings in my mattress, where no one can touch it.
Go old school. Cans filled with money buried randomly in your backyard.
Or keep your money in your backyard bomb shelter, safely locked away. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2011, 03:22:41 AM
It's laughable that the conservatives are claiming that the recent downgrade is unrelated to debt ceiling fight. They knew full well what not raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner would do. If they didn't it wouldn't make sense to use it to blackmail the president or as they say "hold President Obama accountable". Accountable for what or to what is anyone's guess.
Didn't the S&P communication about the downgrade expressly state that this was a part of the reason?
Quote from: Martinus on August 08, 2011, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2011, 03:22:41 AM
It's laughable that the conservatives are claiming that the recent downgrade is unrelated to debt ceiling fight. They knew full well what not raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner would do. If they didn't it wouldn't make sense to use it to blackmail the president or as they say "hold President Obama accountable". Accountable for what or to what is anyone's guess.
Didn't the S&P communication about the downgrade expressly state that this was a part of the reason?
I thought they said the specific reason was that the debt ceiling fight made it clear there was no political will or ability to resolve the fundamental problem.
If the Republicans had just rolled over and let the Dems continue to simply borrow even more to fund the deficit rather than do anything about it, I don't see how that would make our credit risk any better.
Obviously the BEST solution from the risk agencies perspective would be a serious proposal to slash spending and increase revenues. But apparently that is not possible, and both parties bear some responsibility for that. The TBers are going to get more than an equal share, but that is just because they happened to be the last group to refuse to compromise. Lord knows the Dems sure didn't care to be reasonable three years ago when they controlled both houses of congress and went on a crazed spending spree, and sank their own party in a tantrum because the Blue Dogs didn't toe the party line that "you have to feed a recession! The only way to kill off a recession is choke it to death with borrowed cash!"
It's gonna be an interesting FOMC meeting tomorrow.
Geithner and Bernanke have had an interesting few years. I'd be interested in reading their memoirs someday.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2011, 10:55:58 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 10:44:52 AM
So markets are told treasuries have more risk, which scares people, and scared people run to treasuries?
Pretty much. The downgrade doesn't in itself change the risk profile of Treasuries, which is still quite solid. But it does reinforce the pre-existing negative sentiment about the economy, because it is now clear that the the US government cannot act as a source of strength for the economy -- the opposite is more likely. Think what would happen if a Lehman-style even occurred now: the federal government would neither have the financial firepower, the political support, or the legal authority to act decisively.
The Euromess is a factor in the negative sense that Euro-sovereigns can't act effectively as an alternative draw for investors seeking more liquidity and less risk. There was no news over the weekend which affected the fundamentals of the Eurosovereigns (other than ECB growing a pair and buying Med debt, which is a net positive for the market).
All that stuff about the US was known long before S&P chimed in. I'm interpreting this as the continued crisis of Italian and Spanish debt that went into high gear last week. If markets are crashing because of the opinion of S&P, they are much less efficient than I thought.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 03:39:47 PM
All that stuff about the US was known long before S&P chimed in.
Depends what you mean by "this stuff"
The S&P downgrade in itself doesn't impact the safety of US treasury securities (which is one reason they haven't been negatively affected). What it does do is impact the political dynamics around the budget - it weakens the White House and gives deficit hawks a political club. And the implication of that is that until the '12 election there will be no action to improve the employment situation or promote growth, and at the same time there is risks of another big ugly showdown over the budget in year's time. Translated into market terms, that means earnings estimates may be over-optimistic, there is a chance of a double-dip, and expectation of more volatility and uncertainty ahead ---> flight from equity and illiquid investments into safe, highly liquid investments. Like treasuries.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2011, 04:18:37 PM
The S&P downgrade in itself doesn't impact the safety of US treasury securities (which is one reason they haven't been negatively affected). What it does do is impact the political dynamics around the budget - it weakens the White House and gives deficit hawks a political club. And the implication of that is that until the '12 election there will be no action to improve the employment situation or promote growth, and at the same time there is risks of another big ugly showdown over the budget in year's time. Translated into market terms, that means earnings estimates may be over-optimistic, there is a chance of a double-dip, and expectation of more volatility and uncertainty ahead ---> flight from equity and illiquid investments into safe, highly liquid investments. Like treasuries.
So the market which was ostensibly worried about the U.S. deficit is now worried about a lack of government spending?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2011, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2011, 03:39:47 PM
All that stuff about the US was known long before S&P chimed in.
Depends what you mean by "this stuff"
The S&P downgrade in itself doesn't impact the safety of US treasury securities (which is one reason they haven't been negatively affected). What it does do is impact the political dynamics around the budget - it weakens the White House and gives deficit hawks a political club. And the implication of that is that until the '12 election there will be no action to improve the employment situation or promote growth, and at the same time there is risks of another big ugly showdown over the budget in year's time. Translated into market terms, that means earnings estimates may be over-optimistic, there is a chance of a double-dip, and expectation of more volatility and uncertainty ahead ---> flight from equity and illiquid investments into safe, highly liquid investments. Like treasuries.
I'd include all of that in "this stuff." The current republican house wasn't going to pass any positive spending whether the rating is AA+ or AAA.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 08, 2011, 04:21:12 PM
So the market which was ostensibly worried about the U.S. deficit is now worried about a lack of government spending?
"The market" is not a single actor with single mind. But regardless of perspective, the downgrade is a net negative because it further poisons the political atmosphere and thus generates greater uncertainty and risk for the future.
I do think that there a lot of market participants that are concerned about short-term risks of a double dip recession. If not, they should be. There is a reason that the proposed deficit cuts under ALL plans (including Ryan) were significantly back-loaded. Consumers are still paying down private debt, banks are recapitalizing, and industrial enterprises are hoarding cash. But all that private saving has to be balanced off with public dis-saving. The deficits have been providing the economic cover for the private sectors to get private balance sheets back into order. The hawkish fantasy is that if the government really cut spending, private business would be so impressed they would immediately jump-start investment. I don't think that is plausible given the still-weakened position of consumers. Stronger public spending restraint in the short term is going to good for government bonds, but bad for everything else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2011, 04:35:33 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 08, 2011, 04:21:12 PM
So the market which was ostensibly worried about the U.S. deficit is now worried about a lack of government spending?
"The market" is not a single actor with single mind. But regardless of perspective, the downgrade is a net negative because it further poisons the political atmosphere and thus generates greater uncertainty and risk for the future.
I do think that there a lot of market participants that are concerned about short-term risks of a double dip recession. If not, they should be. There is a reason that the proposed deficit cuts under ALL plans (including Ryan) were significantly back-loaded. Consumers are still paying down private debt, banks are recapitalizing, and industrial enterprises are hoarding cash. But all that private saving has to be balanced off with public dis-saving. The deficits have been providing the economic cover for the private sectors to get private balance sheets back into order. The hawkish fantasy is that if the government really cut spending, private business would be so impressed they would immediately jump-start investment. I don't think that is plausible given the still-weakened position of consumers. Stronger public spending restraint in the short term is going to good for government bonds, but bad for everything else.
Even without a double dip, we moved so far off the lows I think the market was pricing in a rebound. With 9%+ unemployment there is plenty of slack for significant growth. At the very least there is plenty of reason to think that this isn't happening atm.
We are still way up from the 2008 lows and also up from where we were about 5 quarters ago.
Enjoy!
(from the moonie Wash Times)
QuoteLiberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.
On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor's — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.
"Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008& now they will do it again," Mr. Moore wrote.
ROR
:lol:
So now that the credit reference agencies are doing their job, Michael Moore thinks they should be arrested (EDIT: Or, rather, the people who work for them)? :wacko:
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 09, 2011, 12:42:08 PM
So now that the credit reference agencies are doing their job, Michael Moore thinks they should be arrested (EDIT: Or, rather, the people who work for them)? :wacko:
Yes. The Berlusconi method.
:P
That guy's a nutcase.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 09, 2011, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 09, 2011, 12:42:08 PM
So now that the credit reference agencies are doing their job, Michael Moore thinks they should be arrested (EDIT: Or, rather, the people who work for them)? :wacko:
Yes. The Berlusconi method.
:P
Great. Now I have an image of Moore and "bunga bunga" in my head.
BRAIN BLEACH NEEDED!
Quote from: Malthus on August 09, 2011, 03:24:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 09, 2011, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 09, 2011, 12:42:08 PM
So now that the credit reference agencies are doing their job, Michael Moore thinks they should be arrested (EDIT: Or, rather, the people who work for them)? :wacko:
Yes. The Berlusconi method.
:P
Great. Now I have an image of Moore and "bunga bunga" in my head.
BRAIN BLEACH NEEDED!
Thanks! Now so do I! :yuk: