Alliedassault - View Single Post

Short Hand · 09-04-2004, 11:25 AM

[quote="TGB!":83d09][quote="Short Hand":83d09]ok TGB im not economic expert...but I do kind of know things like this...[/quote:83d09]

Absolutely irrelevant. The United States has been operating with a trade def for quite some time now (one that is many times that of the federal def). We borrow what we dont have. However the bottom line is that Kerry believes the economy will miraculous multiple by leaps and bounds simply by virtue of him getting into office, and that raising taxes on folks making over 200K, penalizing American companies that are getting out of the tax quagmire that is the US tax code, and initiating 2 trillion dollars worth of bloated government will all somehow work itself out with each other. Not gonna happen.[/quote:83d09]

[quote="George Jackson":83d09]
Some economists ask: What is so bad about a trade deficit? After all, trade is mutually beneficial, so those who export to America are benefiting as much as those Americans who buy the products. This statement completely misses the point. It's not a question of deficits per se: it's a question of 'bad deficits' v 'good deficits'. To some economists, there is no such thing. Wrong again, just as so many of them are wrong about growth and consumer spending.

What I intend to stress is that bad deficits are like the spots measles produce. They are symptoms, not causes. Now the bad deficit occurs when the central bank lets loose with the money supply, usually through our old enemy credit expansion. Now I have already discussed elsewhere how this monetary policy triggers booms and inflates asset values. But there is also the effect on the trade balance.

Inflating spending leads to an increased demand for imports. Eventually the demand grows, unless monetary policy is tightened, until it reaches the point where the central bank sees it as another warning signal that monetary policy needs to be tightened.

[/quote:83d09]

This is the problem. TGB. were generating "bad deficits" instead of good ones. All threw the Clinton years deficits happned etc etc(trade), but they were not damaging like the ones experienced today. This would explain the slow growth in the economy, & unemployement increasing, Salary's in jobs not going higher etc, etc ,etc. This is what a lot of economists are trying to explain. Yet you get bone heads on Fox news, paid by Good Ole Murlock to say otherwise.

	(#64)
Short Hand is Offline Brigadier General Posts: 10,721 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?	09-04-2004, 11:25 AM [quote="TGB!":83d09][quote="Short Hand":83d09]ok TGB im not economic expert...but I do kind of know things like this...[/quote:83d09] Absolutely irrelevant. The United States has been operating with a trade def for quite some time now (one that is many times that of the federal def). We borrow what we dont have. However the bottom line is that Kerry believes the economy will miraculous multiple by leaps and bounds simply by virtue of him getting into office, and that raising taxes on folks making over 200K, penalizing American companies that are getting out of the tax quagmire that is the US tax code, and initiating 2 trillion dollars worth of bloated government will all somehow work itself out with each other. Not gonna happen.[/quote:83d09] [quote="George Jackson":83d09] Some economists ask: What is so bad about a trade deficit? After all, trade is mutually beneficial, so those who export to America are benefiting as much as those Americans who buy the products. This statement completely misses the point. It's not a question of deficits per se: it's a question of 'bad deficits' v 'good deficits'. To some economists, there is no such thing. Wrong again, just as so many of them are wrong about growth and consumer spending. What I intend to stress is that bad deficits are like the spots measles produce. They are symptoms, not causes. Now the bad deficit occurs when the central bank lets loose with the money supply, usually through our old enemy credit expansion. Now I have already discussed elsewhere how this monetary policy triggers booms and inflates asset values. But there is also the effect on the trade balance. Inflating spending leads to an increased demand for imports. Eventually the demand grows, unless monetary policy is tightened, until it reaches the point where the central bank sees it as another warning signal that monetary policy needs to be tightened. [/quote:83d09] This is the problem. TGB. were generating "bad deficits" instead of good ones. All threw the Clinton years deficits happned etc etc(trade), but they were not damaging like the ones experienced today. This would explain the slow growth in the economy, & unemployement increasing, Salary's in jobs not going higher etc, etc ,etc. This is what a lot of economists are trying to explain. Yet you get bone heads on Fox news, paid by Good Ole Murlock to say otherwise.