If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Spectator)   The Achilles heel of American hegemony - Nuclear Yuan   (spectator.org) divider line 22
    More: Scary, Nuclear Yuan, account balances, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Rogoff, spendthrifts, personal budget, hegemony, achilles heel  
•       •       •

1137 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2013 at 11:24 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-25 11:26:26 AM
Yeah, and why might the dollar fail, American Potato writer?  Because of Republicans you support who are willing to default the government just because you hate Obama.
 
2013-10-25 11:37:13 AM
I generally avoid clicking on the American Expectorator, and I see nothing in this headline to lead me to make an exception in this case.
 
2013-10-25 11:54:31 AM
Claiming the Democratic economic theorem is that deficits don't matter
Equating quantitative easing to money printing
Citing Kenneth Rogoff unironically
Comparing Japanese and American debt without discussing the historical and societal causes
Suggesting the yuan could replace the dollar without acknowledging that they are coupled.

In short, he's not even wrong.
 
2013-10-25 12:09:55 PM
Democrats adhere to the Keynesian/Paul Krugman school, which says that "deficits don't matter"

I thought that was Cheney.
 
2013-10-25 12:26:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Democrats adhere to the Keynesian/Paul Krugman school, which says that "deficits don't matter"

I thought that was Cheney.


It's part of an even more delicious quote directly from Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

And Cheney (and Reagan) would be correct. I know the Republicans use the biatching about the deficit they run up as a weapon to cut social spending, but by and large deficits don't have a negative effect on the economy until inflation becomes a problem. We should be running larger deficits; they could help quite a bit seeing as how the entire Western world is in a massive deflationary spiral.

But as long as the discussion is about how much the deficit should be cut and retards continue to think government budgets are the same as household budgets, we won't recover near as well as we could be doing.
 
2013-10-25 12:27:29 PM

Stile4aly: Claiming the Democratic economic theorem is that deficits don't matter
Equating quantitative easing to money printing
Citing Kenneth Rogoff unironically

Comparing Japanese and American debt without discussing the historical and societal causes
Suggesting the yuan could replace the dollar without acknowledging that they are coupled.

In short, he's not even wrong.


BUT GOLD AND VON MISES AND PETER SCHIFF AND THEREFORE
 
2013-10-25 12:29:10 PM
"It's like a household budget."

No, it's not.

Author also conflates current account and federal budget deficits.

"savers are currently being stiffed by the Fed's zero interest rates"

Author also thinks the Fed forces investors to buy these Treasuries at these returns.

Author then dives deep into goldbuggery.

leebankruptcy.com

I'm half expecting a "click here for my newsletter on HOW YOU CAN GET RICH INVESTING IN GOLD"
 
2013-10-25 01:56:31 PM
Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.
 
2013-10-25 02:34:46 PM

MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.


So what happens if cheap Chinese exports cannot be sustained in the face of changing currency values, increasing demands for better wages, or if Chinese businesses no longer wanting to invest US debt, causing them to spend way more at home, causing inflation at home?

Or, to ask it another way, what indications are there that the situation will be permanent? It's an honest question, because some economists might argue that the advantage of free trade is that as the standard of living increases in other parts of the world, the overall demand for consumer goods goes up across the board, making it possible for everyone to increase GDP. And as the standard of living goes up in places like China, they find it harder to game the system the way they do now to flood the market with cheap exports.
 
2013-10-25 02:49:54 PM

MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.


I am shocked... SHOCKED that you are the submitter.
 
2013-10-25 02:53:59 PM
That article is idiotic. Yes, we'll eventually lose that status of 'reserve currency' around the world at some point in the future. No, our economy isn't going to instantly collapse in the near future.

Eventually as the economic power of the Chinese middle class expands, China will become a much larger economic player on a world stage. India, assuming it can navigate the multiple problems it currently has (stemming mostly from corruption from what little I know on the specifics), will do the same.

Yes, we're buying more from them than they are from us. That's the entire point of the 'service economy' that we've created. China is used because labor is stupid cheap. Eventually that'll change. Simply because we don't manufacture iPhones in the country doesn't mean we're doomed.

The only way to profitably produce most items in this country is through massive automation anyways. So, yes, manufacturing jobs are mostly likely permanently gone. This is how progress works. We no longer hand make every item sold on the open market, and that's a good thing.
 
2013-10-25 03:49:47 PM
This is what the Tea Party is all about. All the big investors in the Tea movement are the industrialist ownership class. They've been moving their hard assets, that is manufacturing, mining operations, banks, real estate etc. to China for over 2 decades now, they are no longer required to report income made outside of the country and pay no taxes in either one. All they need from the United States is to maintain consumption. That by itself has already been shown to be quite easy to do.

Now, they own almost all of the means of production, and all of that is in a country that has been artificially supporting it's own currency and is now openly making a case for switching the world market over to the Yuan. Saddam Hussein floated the idea back in 1998 for chrissake.

Are we farked yet?
 
2013-10-25 04:21:56 PM

ohknaks: The only way to profitably produce most items in this country is through massive automation anyways. So, yes, manufacturing jobs are mostly likely permanently gone. This is how progress works. We no longer hand make every item sold on the open market, and that's a good thing.


And what do you propose should happen to those billions of people who will never have any potential other than the manufacturing sector?
 
2013-10-25 04:27:55 PM

Stile4aly: MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.

I am shocked... SHOCKED that you are the submitter.


Oh, Lord. Now it all makes sense.
 
2013-10-25 05:08:20 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld: And what do you propose should happen to those billions of people who will never have any potential other than the manufacturing sector?


Oh please. To take your argument and put it in a historical perspective:


"And what do you propose should happen to those millions of people who will never have any potential other than as peasants"


or:


"And what do you propose should happen to those hundreds of thousands of people who will never have any potential other than as hunters and gatherers"


Human progress is why we have leisure time and things like artwork or music. Yes, if you're an out of work person from the manufacturing industry, it does certainly suck. However, in the long run, freeing up labor for other uses is a good thing. Right now, labor is cheap in China. 40 years from now? Most likely not. The same thing will eventually happen to China.
 
2013-10-25 05:57:03 PM

Stile4aly: MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.

I am shocked... SHOCKED that you are the submitter.


:)
 
2013-10-25 06:50:54 PM
FTFA:
"Democrats adhere to the Keynesian/Paul Krugman school, which says that "deficits don't matter,""

"deficits don't matter,"

Where have I herd this before?

moldychum.typepad.com
 
2013-10-25 08:21:30 PM

ohknaks: Human progress is why we have leisure time and things like artwork or music. Yes, if you're an out of work person from the manufacturing industry, it does certainly suck. However, in the long run, freeing up labor for other uses is a good thing. Right now, labor is cheap in China. 40 years from now? Most likely not. The same thing will eventually happen to China.


In all those changes, labor moved from one form of labor to a more efficient form of labor.  People still had jobs, along with extra free time.  We're getting to the point where large swaths of people will be entirely replaced by machines.  What will they do to make an income?  Not everyone can turn into an artist or musician, and even if they could, they all can't have enough of a customer base to provide for themselves.  And I certainly doubt those who control the means of production will be giving away products.
 
2013-10-25 08:34:49 PM

MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.


Someone clicked "smart" for this comment. I wonder who that might have been.
 
2013-10-25 08:58:32 PM

BMulligan: MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.

Someone clicked "smart" for this comment. I wonder who that might have been.


I did, because he's absolutely correct.  Do you have any factual reply to his statement, or are you just going to whine like usual?  For someone claiming to be a lawyer, you do a really shiatty job representing your position.
 
2013-10-26 03:31:19 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: BMulligan: MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.

Someone clicked "smart" for this comment. I wonder who that might have been.

I did, because he's absolutely correct.  Do you have any factual reply to his statement, or are you just going to whine like usual?  For someone claiming to be a lawyer, you do a really shiatty job representing your position.


We've had trade deficits for 40 years.  Why are they suddenly a looming catastrophe?
 
2013-10-26 07:49:02 AM

Stile4aly: BraveNewCheneyWorld: BMulligan: MattStafford: Submitter here -

Look at the larger picture.  We are buying way more stuff from China/the rest of the world than they are buying from us.  This cannot be a permanent situation.  It will end one way or another, and when that happens, it is going to be painful.

Someone clicked "smart" for this comment. I wonder who that might have been.

I did, because he's absolutely correct.  Do you have any factual reply to his statement, or are you just going to whine like usual?  For someone claiming to be a lawyer, you do a really shiatty job representing your position.

We've had trade deficits for 40 years.  Why are they suddenly a looming catastrophe?


Only during WW2 did we have a debt comparable to today.  The end of WW2 also saw the end of massive spending, we have no such trigger event to cut the spending on the horizon.  We also have destroyed all of our protectionist economic policies, so we're even worse off for any potential recovery.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report