Re: I'd like to buy an argument
 

Is not.

Re: I'd like to buy an argument
 

11111

Re: I'd like to buy an argument
 

Fuck you.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Name the sector. Come up with even a suggestion of one from which the next bubble will emerge. Historically, when a residential r/e bubble emerges, it's a sign all potential others have been exhausted.

If there's no bubble anywhere in the foreseeable future, how do we pay for increased spending? Do we put it all on red and bet the threat of an inevitable yield explosion is merely conceptual? Perhaps now isn't the time to discuss spending cuts. I can see that logic. But we already blew the opportunity to seriously address unemployment when we wasted much of the Stimulus that could have been used to put many back to work in infrastructure rebuilding. Now it's too late for a WPA like program that would immediately address unemployment.

I agree that cutting spending and raising taxes is not good for unemployment, but if we can't afford to borrow without demonstrating some form of fiscal vigilance, what's the option? Catch 22... Employment's a long term fix. Borrowing for short term cash flow's an acute issue. B has to be handled before A, even if it makes handling A more difficult.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Apparently, yes.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Not sure they do, but Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota have a tenth of the Senators between them.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Don't worry about these issues any more. Clubby and I are settling the debt issues using his negotiating technique.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

We don't "need to cut benefits programs." (In Washington parlance, a hard choice is a bunch of affluent journalists and politicians deciding that a senior citizen doesn't need Social Security -- really tough.) With the same will it took to give money back to rich people via the Bush tax cuts or to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could simply decide to find the money to deal with the fact that the population is aging. Just about every other developed country in the world figures out how to pay for this stuff.

We do need to control the escalation in health-care costs, which is driving the problems with Medicaid and Medicare. But this doesn't mean we need to just cut benefits -- we need to find out how to control costs so that they are in line with the rest of the world. I don't think you disagree with this, but it's hard enough to do before you mix in the hostility of conservatives to having these programs at all.

The fundamental problem is that the population is aging.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Tech is looking very bubbly these days.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

As I understand it, most of the "cuts" being proposed right now are in the form of raising the eligibility age and changing the way the cost of living adjustment is calculated (currently not tied to the CPI). This, plus a modest increase in the SS and Medicare cap do not sound draconian to me, but any suggestion of it is met with the claim that we are throwing grandmothers and the poor into the street to die a long, painful death.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Medical devices. Health care services. Energy. Green energy. Technology and networking. Other stuff that people more productive and industrious than you or I could think of.

Or, alternatively, maybe Hank will tell us when he writes the next chapter.

ETA: Or go with Scott Sumner's view that booms will come if you grow NGDP.

Cite, please.

Well, yes, if there was any indication that was the case you might have a point.

Except that B isn't the issue, and no one is meaningfully talking about changing B. Instead, we are talking today about cutting future spending to cut future deficits. Never mind that neither form of cut, nor the future deficit, are things whose existence can be in any way confirmed today.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Death panels are bad, whether the panel is appointed by Obama or Congress.

Also, Old People Vote, a lot.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't know why you put those in quotes, as they area both indeed cuts. Even if they are necessary/good.

Yeah, that's what Obama has said. :rolleyes:

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

To you and me, perhaps, but apparently not to club.

These are programs that are really, really popular, especially among old people, who are likelier to vote. Given that, there is a fundamental problem with what conservatives keep trying to do, a la the Ryan plan, which is leave current benefits alone, lower tax rates for wealthy people, and enact a promise that future old people will be paid less down the road. What are the chances that future Congresses will decide to be bound by this? Given the popularity of these programs, slim to none.

If you want balanced budgets, you need to balance the budget. Republicans don't want to balance the budget.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Actually, I do disagree with most of this. On SS, I believe that some modest changes are appropriate -- increasing the eligibility age, possibly means-testing, a few other things. None of these are radical changes, but all are "cuts." I don't view the elimination of the Bush tax cuts as a satisfactory answer, partly because of the political atmosphere and partly because, even if that were to happen, I'd rather see the money go to something more productive than pensions. Research, infrastructure, a number of other things.

As for health care, you've said this before, many times, but really haven't ever said (to my memory) how you would propose to "control the costs." And in any event, that's still cutting costs -- ideally in a way that doesn't cut benefits/value, but still cutting costs. I do think that is critical. I would rather that it happen in a way that leads to better and more cost-effective health care -- and, bluntly, to a hell of a lot less being spent on stupid shit -- but we do not have infinite time for this.

As for other countries, they provide some examples. But not many. First, I don't know that any European countries have economies that we should envy, with the possible exception of Germany. Second, many of them have had a lot of cash to spare, because they don't have our levels of military spending and they have taken advantage of that for decades. You can say we should change that, and bring our military spending in line with that of Western Europe, but even if I agreed with that on a policy level (I don't), it's a pipe dream on a political level. And as for health care, there are so many differences between us and Europe that just saying "France does it better and cheaper" isn't much of a position.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yeah, I remember Obama last week talking a lot about how Rs were killing grandma.

ETA: STP.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

But it's only $400b, ten years from now. Close enough, right?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Ryan's budget relied on those "cuts" too. They're OK when your own party does it, but not when the other guys do it.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Does the same principle apply to taxes? If we raise taxes just a little it doesn't really count, so long as we're throwing tycoons into the street so we can seize their mansions?

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Tech stocks are undervalued relative to industrial stocks, compared to any point in the last fifteen years:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...industrial.jpg

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's not as true as it used to be. See, e.g.

While true, they also tax a lot more, suggesting that small movements towards them on taxes and on military spending would probably be desirable. Heck, even moving to where Japan and Ireland are would go a long way.

There's quite a variety of models in Europe. But what do you have in mind for the "so many differences?" Aside from not giving a central place in their governance to people who don't believe in government, that is.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yea, I don't agree. A decrease in the rate of increased spending is not a cut to me.

Did you watch his speech last night?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yes, I know. It's not my party.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

I'd say more on the road to recovery than bubbly, myself. If it weren't for the foreign investors, private co. tech would still be down.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Perhaps industrial stocks are undervalued.

I know you've seen the insane valuations on the recent IPOs are getting in the market place. I'm also sure you are aware of the frenzy going on in NoCal right now. I know people that are literally making a living brokering private sales of Facebook, Twitter, etc. It's insane.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

[QUOTE=Adder;456418]Green energy? China owns the sector already. And it's not big enough. Helath care? This is already a bubble, and will become a bigger one, which will crush us, rather than create growth.

Really? You need me to go find the white paper to tell you that when people pull equity out of their homes to live on they've run out of avenues for growth? I can't find the exact article I pulled that from, as I read it a bit ago and the potential word combinations are tough to Google, but even without it, that's your best comeback: "Cite Me The Obvious"?

We're talking about changing B down the road in order to sustain cash flow at reasonable cost. If we don't talk about it now, our borrowing costs could rise now, or in the near future. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be talking about it. And no, we didn't invite the conversation. The conversation was started in Europe already, leaving us with no choice but to address it.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Yes, there is very hot subcomponent on social networking, but that industry is maturing quite rapidly right now. I wouldn't translate that to a "tech" bubble.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

"not as true as it used to be" means "still true." Besides, the graph you linked is showing a (so far) short-term change, and only on one aspect of the economy (with no consideration of, say, what it means to be on a single currency with countries like Greece, etc.)



This may be true. I'm not sure the difference is as great as your chart implies. I meant to ask about this yesterday but actual work intervened.

Does the chart deal only with federal/national tax receipts? If so, it's highly misleading. Many European countries use VAT for national taxes, right? But in the US, sales taxes are paid to states, counties, localities. Does it deal with other local taxes, like property taxes, that can be quite high here?

Beyond that, we pay for a lot of things here that in Europe you get from the goverment. Things ranging from education to health care to transit. You can say "we should provide pensions like they do in France, we have plenty of room to raise taxes to their levels." But, if you aren't taking into account that much of the $x less that I pay in taxes here goes to private health insurance, saving for college, etc., then you are greatly overstating the room that we have to raise taxes.

Put differently, it is very difficult to compare individual aspects of something as complex as tax policy (or entire economic systems) across nations.





Start with history -- the European health care systems grew in very different political cultures. More openness to government control. Vastly lower obesity rates. Much lower use of many kinds of drugs. Very different lifestyles, in terms of work and leisure and so forth, that have an impact on health. Less mobile population, so things like homecare are often provided by family. The list goes on and on, and probably extends to many smaller differences that have a significant impact on the cost and delivery of healthcare.

Stay Klassy, Glenn Beck!
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ler-youth.html

Nice.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Tell that to the guy down the hall from me who spends all his time doing green energy deals. Tell that to Dow Chemical (and others including the former Hexion and Huntsman) who have been investing in materials for wind (yes, some in China). Drive around country (at least last summer) and count how many wind mills and trucks carrying wind mill parts you see. Tell that to others who are busy paying sizable premiums for companies that make equipment used to make solar cells.

And that's not getting to lithium batteries and other stuff that I've not personally had any exposure to.

It will crush us if we are unwilling to pay for it.

I've seen plenty about how excessively lose credit leads to housing bubbles, which leads to greater consumption, but no, I've seen no support for "a housing bubble historically means there's no possible alternatives to growth." You know why? Because that statement couldn't possibly be supported.

But I'll take your "it's obvious" response to mean you don't have any basis for your statement.

ETA: On further reflection, I might remember the white paper you are thinking of. My recollection was that the hypothesis wasn't all that convincing, and regardless, it doesn't support your statement about the history.

We are talking about promising that we are going keep future changes to B down the road because that's what a certain vocal segment of the population wants to here.

They could. There is, of course, no reason to believe that they will, but they could.

And fair number of people seem to believe they will, even if they can't explain why (beyond, well, they did in Greece, that is).

I don't know what to say other than shm.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Yeah, our borrowing costs COULD rise, certainly, and lots of bad things could happen. But right now, currently, as we speak, on Tuesday afternoon, we have a level of unemployment that no one finds acceptable at all. While sustaining cash flow at reasonable cost, balancing the budget and reducing the national debt are all completely worthy goals, the things we're proposing doing are going to do nothing to fix the shit we're in right now.

And everyone needs to give me a fucking break about Europe. We're not "Europe" in any way, good or bad, and we're certainly not Greece, Ireland or Portugal, which is what everyone arguing your side of this debate really means when they use the term "Europe," as if Germany were in Africa.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Not as true as it used to means I don't have evidence to make a stronger statement.

Huh? The employment gap has been narrowing for 20 years.

And yes, one aspect, but rather a key one, no?

I don't think so. It's total government receipts. But I'll see if I can confirm. I agree it would be highly misleading if it wasn't.

ETA: This says fed and state. Not sure if that means no local.

Huh? You have that backward. Shifting from paying the private sector to paying the public sector for the same service should be a wash for you (unless you dogmatically assume government inefficiency).

Anyway, your point cuts the other way.

And I didn't say we have room to raise taxes to French levels. I said we have room to raise taxes in their direction.

Good thing no one was doing that.

The point is the dogmatic notion that any amount of greater tax means slower grow doesn't really match up with the evidence.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Not was I was trying to imply, sorry. It was more a comment about the GOP reaction to Reid's proposal.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Any one noticed that the German market is doing ok during this week's "Boehner slide"? Everytime I glance at Bloomberg, Germany is green and everyone else red.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

If the question is how to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, it really only takes modest changes, and I can imagine a deal that involves some of the cuts you describe coupled with some measures to add revenue. My point about the Bush tax cuts is that the same people who says we "can't" afford Social Security decades from now did far more damage to the budget withe Bush tax cuts. "Can't afford" in that context is code for "don't want to pay for because we would rather spend the money on other things."

At any rate, despite the scaremongering on the part of people who are ideologically opposed to the program, Social Security is not in bad shape. The scaremongers lump it in with Medicare and Medicaid to make things sound worse than they are, because they are still at war with the New Deal.

There are two separate, interrelated questions here: one of policy, and one of politics. As a policy matter, you can identify areas where we pay way too much, given the results, and you can devise incentives to drive those costs down. RT has posted about this and has my proxy. One problem we have is that middlemen take too much money. One (but only one) way to drive costs down would be single payer, but there are others.

As a political matter, it's very hard to do, because cutting costs meaning taking money from incumbents like insurance companies and doctors, and they will spend to preserve their take. If one political party (say, the GOP) decides to fight reform in order to win the favor and $$$ of the incumbents, it makes reform much harder, obviously.

Healthcare costs are going to keep rising. All the action is on the margin. Making radical cuts in what gets covered doesn't solve the problem -- it just shifts it onto individuals who are even less able to manage it.

(1) I think I mentioned other countries to debunk the "we can't afford it" point. Most other OECD countries have higher tax burdens than we do. Obviously we could afford it. That doesn't mean we should copy Denmark, though it's not a bad place to live. It does mean that the people who keep saying we can't afford a single dime more in taxes (not you) should STFU, and have a real conversation. Everyone would like more money than they have, but the self-pity of rich people is especially annoying.

(2) On a HCR level, there is certainly much we could learn about the ways that different countries (and different states) do things differently. This seems so obvious that it's hardly worth saying, except that many Republicans have a ideological commitment to resisting it, fed by campaign contributions.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yes, thanks. Meaning, it's still true.


According to your graph, the only significant narrowing has been in the past 2 or 3 years. If you were focused on the period before that, you would have to downgrade your first comment to "marginally less true than it used to be, based on the minimal narrowing over the past 15 years." Woo-fucking-hoo.


Yes.


Ty was saying that we could provide better pensions, and pointing to Europe as an example. And one justification we hear for that is that our tax burden isn't as high as Europe's. But we have to pay the private sector for so many things that Europeans don't, that I don't think it's nearly as clear a comparison as you like to make it. In other words, we have a lot less room to raise taxes than you seem to think.

I have no idea what "shift" you are talking about. If we increased taxes to provide better social security benefits, what cost would I no longer have to pay? What private service would that replace for me? There is none -- the added potential benefits to me personally would be so minimal that I would want to maintain the same level of retirement savings.

I wasn't talking about replacing private health insurance with a public option, which I agree would be a "shfit". I thought that was clear, not only from the context (i.e., the comment to which I responded), but also from the fact that we aren't living in fairy-land.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I was saying we can afford the benefits we provide now.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

What are you talking about:

http://libertystreeteconomics.typepa...af68970c-400wi

Europe's on a pretty steady rate of growth for 20 years, and for the last ten has been closing the gap by continuing that growth while the U.S. regressed.

We were discussing health care.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't disagree, at least not strongly, with anything you are saying. (Except for the comment about the impact of "radical health care cuts," depending on what you mean by radical. I suspect that many people would choose not to take certain kinds of treatment if government support were cut, and in many instances that would not be a bad thing. In other instances, less public money could be viewed as "incentives" -- I see nothing wrong with limiting the availability of public money for dealing with the health problems inherent in obesity, smoking, etc., for example.)

But, just as Rs treat every tax increase as the Apocalypse, many Ds treat any change to SS or Medicare as throwing grandma on the street. And I believe that both are necessary -- some tax increases, and some changes to SS and Medicare/Medicaid. And Obama was willing to trade one for the other, and the fucking Rs blew it.

They not only blew it for the country, but for themselves. Just read the comments of Mickey Edwards and Alan Simpson, and they were right -- Boehner should have taken the deal and declared victory for shrinking government. But the stupid fucking Tea Party thinks "size of government" correlates to "amount of tax revenue" rather than "amount of spending on government."

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

No, we were discussing benefits, expressly including SS, and I was specifically responding to Ty's comment that we could provide more for pensions like Europe does. Sorry if you missed that, but that was the reality.


As for your graph -- jesus fucking christ. Look at the lines. At what point does the red line look like a better place than the black? Never. At what point does the gap between to close at a rate where you could foresee the lines crossing within a decade? Not until 2008.