How does everyone feel about the spending bill?

I've got a more current and US specific equation:

(Savings - Investment) = (Gov Spending - Taxes) + (Exports - Imports)

In other words:

(Private Sector) = (Gov Sector) + (Foreign Sector)

So, if we have a gov surplus + a trade deficit, then the private sector is running a deficit. The longer this persists, the further the private sector falls into debt. The most efficient correction here would be to increase government spending. Once the gov surplus becomes a gov deficit (assuming trade balance stays same) then the private sector moves from deficit to surplus

I think you misunderstood my post; I wasn't calling for budget surpluses per se (and in fact unironically was thanking Obama, as incremental increases in Y are a good thing), just pointing out that sustaining a deficit larger than 1/2 the cost of the Iraq War (as it was in 2010) is definitely going to have implications for inflation, especially when we're no longer in a recession.

We probably agree that budget surpluses are bad policy. Because there is pretty much always demand for US-backed treasury bonds, the optimal level of debt/deficit is going to be >0. Not taking advantage of this fact would actually be harmful.
 
Last edited:
1) Currency and monetary policy can get a bit nuanced and abstract so I'm not gonna be a dick in this discussion. By definition, if a nation is using its own currency to supply the world with an international reserve currency, then it can't both be experiencing healthy economic growth domestically AND sufficiently supplying enough of their currency to foreign for it to function properly as a reserve currency. Refer to the Triffin Dillema I posted earlier

This is what happens when you regurgitate talking points you read somehwere without making any effort whatsoever to really understand what you are posting.

Yes, you can do both with a fiat currency, because there isnt a limit factor to the amount of USDs that can be printed.

2) The US always has a capital account surplus precisely because the USD is backed by OPEC petro. Oil-exporters invariably end up with an enormous surplus of petrodollars, and much if not most of this surplus is then invested in US securities. So this keeps our capital account strong enough to compensate for our current account deficit so that in the end our balance of payments appears healthy. But while it looks fine on paper, it really is an artificial byproduct of the petrodollar system

More like a byproduct of international tax evasion where third world corrupt politicians hide their money in western banks.

But this is another place where you are contradicting yourself, you claim the US is hamstringed by a flight of USD (which the US can print at will) now you accept that the US account is indeed balanced but unhealthy for some reason.

Anyways, I'm not sure why we're debating this as if it's actually up for debate. Existence of the US-OPEC petrodollar system is an established fact. This system, where USDs can always be redeemed for petroleum, by definition makes the USD a commodity-backed currency

Well established among conspiracy nuts.

Also if the USD was pegged to oil there wouldnt be as much variation on the price of oil.
 
Don't be mad at me that the party that campaigns on being fiscal conservative, are not in fact not fiscal conservatives. I want to know how their base can keep believing their lies. After 8 years of crying about Obama we get this.
Oh, I'm not mad at you. I don't like them either. Trey Gowdy is the only active republican I can think of right now who I would support for anything.

I just happen to think that the Democrats are equally dishonest.

Edit: I would support Rand, too. I just don't like him as much as his dad. I appreciate his denouncement of this budget.
 
The Ironic thing is, the rubes would have gotten a more "conservative budget" out of a Hillary administration.
 
350 billion a year in interest payments and that is with historic low interest rates
 
Lol I refuse to waste any more time on you so I'm gonna make this quick

This is what happens when you regurgitate talking points you read somehwere without making any effort whatsoever to really understand what you are posting.

Yes, you can do both with a fiat currency, because there isnt a limit factor to the amount of USDs that can be printed.



More like a byproduct of international tax evasion where third world corrupt politicians hide their money in western banks.

But this is another place where you are contradicting yourself, you claim the US is hamstringed by a flight of USD (which the US can print at will) now you accept that the US account is indeed balanced but unhealthy for some reason.



Well established among conspiracy nuts.

Also if the USD was pegged to oil there wouldnt be as much variation on the price of oil.

Rod, the only reason the US can now do that is because, again, it's a commodity backed currency

I don't think the US is hamstringed, I described what would happen under your premise that the petrodollar doesn't exist. You know, the very thing that happened to the USD before the establishment of the petrodollar. It's called the Triffin Dilema and I've posted about it numerous times itt yet I doubt anyone has actually read or comprehended the concept

International Monetary Fund -- conspiracy nuts
http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp032306a

Harvard Business School -- conspiracy nuts
https://hbr.org/2008/09/where-oil-rich-nations-are-placing-their-bets

The Economist -- conspiracy nuts
https://www.economist.com/node/5136281

Georgetown University -- conspiracy nuts
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/imo3/petrod/define.htm

I could go on but it's occurring to me that you really don't have any substantive base of knowledge on this topic. Should've tipped me off when you didn't even know the standard term for "USD capital flow and services surplus" lol. I let it pass cause I figured it might've been a language barrier thing but now I realize that's probably not the issue. And I have no idea how you got the USD being pegged to the price of oil from anything I've said but tbh I really don't care how you arrived there

Anyways Rod, it's not 2005 anymore and the petrodollar is no longer some internet conspiracy. And don't ever talk to me about economics or the US monetary system again

Expect that this never happened, so your entire premise is shit.

No idea why you're even participating in this discussion. You've offered nothing of substance and yet here you are refuting very well known US history. I posted the clip of Nixon announcing the default ffs

Please, just try your very hardest to read this:

By 1966, non-US central banks held $14 billion, while the United States had only $13.2 billion in gold reserve. Of those reserves, only $3.2 billion was able to cover foreign holdings as the rest was covering domestic holdings.[6]

By 1971, the money supply had increased by 10%.[7] In May 1971, West Germany left the Bretton Woods system, unwilling to revalue the Deutsche Mark.[8] In the following three months, this move strengthened its economy. Simultaneously, the dollar dropped 7.5% against the Deutsche Mark.[8] Other nations began to demand redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million in July.[8] France acquired $191 million in gold.[8] On August 5, 1971, the United States Congress released a report recommending devaluation of the dollar, in an effort to protect the dollar against "foreign price-gougers".[8] On August 9, 1971, as the dollar dropped in value against European currencies, Switzerland left the Bretton Woods system.[8] The pressure began to intensify on the United States to leave Bretton Woods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
If you need someone to explain to you what that^^^ means, ask someone else cause I'm done trying to reason with you guys. I'm legit pissed off that I've wasted my valuable time itt today
 
Senate just passed a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit spending package. Remeber how they were howling when Obama did 1 trillion clips a year in depression/recession Bush caused? Now we are in a good economy Obama made us and Republicans can't stop spending.

When they’re in power, they spend like crazy all the way back to Reagan who quadrupled debt. When they’re out of power, they harp about deficits and debt. Conmen through and through.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-deficits-spending_us_5ab3b942e4b0decad0478d51

That 1.3$trillion is totally affordable.

But remember when Sanders proposed free college for all and it only cost 75$billion...totally unaffordable ;););)
 
That 1.3$trillion is totally affordable.

But remember when Sanders proposed free college for all and it only cost 75$billion...totally unaffordable ;););)


Quoted for the motherfucking truth.
 
That 1.3$trillion is totally affordable.

But remember when Sanders proposed free college for all and it only cost 75$billion...totally unaffordable ;););)

Why do you hate the military so much? We gotta have the strongest military in the world. College is for pussies that hate the military.
 
The libs in here should be happy... They don't know how to be happy though. Should be interesting.
 
That 1.3$trillion is totally affordable.

But remember when Sanders proposed free college for all and it only cost 75$billion...totally unaffordable ;););)
Can't have free college, gotta keep the poors down!
 
Trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion dollar spending bill way. Nice fiscal policy you got there.
 
Trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion dollar spending bill way. Nice fiscal policy you got there.

Why do you hate the rich so much? They need your tax dollars.
 
Is it accurate or inaccurate, though, that it would be harder for us to mitigate something similar in the future if we owe too much money? If the answer is yes to any meaningful degree, that's enough to make we wish that we'd curtail borrowing and spending.

This is true only if you don’t threaten the biggest buyer of government debt with $50 Billion in Tariffs.

What I want to know is WTF is Mnuchen doing?
 
Back
Top