2- I think its great that a conservative hopes the US government in Washington should be responsible for rebuilding America's economic policies. But the federal reserve is a bad idea right?
3- I like how you mention a "conspiracy theory" then debunk it by, well calling it a conspiracy theory. So I'm unsure as to why such an out there suggestion is even listed.
4- Fiat currency is the only way our lazy American asses, and our rich American asses can make any money. If we go to a currency that doesnt rely on debt, we wont need banks. We wont need credit. We won't need rich people. Are you really arguing for that?
I think I can agree on a couple things with this guy.
and so it goes...
The nice part about predicting a future disaster is that you'll eventually be right. That doesn't mean it was (or is) a good prediction.
Forgive me if I don't give much credence to your pleas for unity.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
China needs natural resources which it can acquire by exchanging manufactured goods. So all China really needs from the USA is wheat and wood products. These products are not enough to support American levels of consumption.
And the destruction of America's manufacturing base/agricultural base is the result of the elite there.
The Pakistani elite - in a related story - is reponsible for harvesting lumber in inappropriate quantities. And this lead to the flood damage there now.
The American elite has clear-cut the entire US economy. What a flood that's going to be.
we love the material idols on TV and never question the division of labor that ruins our daily lives
Several quick thoughts:
1. The article implies that Professor Roubini subscribes to a potential American collapse scenario. He does not. His point about being out of policy "bullets" only refers to the effectiveness of responses in avoiding recession if the U.S. is hit by another significant shock. Currently, the U.S. has a still fragile financial system (though it is stronger than it was last year), high unemployment that has constrained growth in aggregate demand, lack of energy flexibility, and high budget deficits that have created potential public opposition to significant new stimulus measures. Hence, the U.S. policy options are limited.
2. Professor Kotlikoff's concerns about the nation's debt situation/fiscal imbalances is a medium- and longer-term threat. The U.S. is currently on an unsustainable fiscal course. Credible fiscal consolidation (discretionary spending reductions, mandatory spending reform, tax hikes) will be required to put the U.S. on a sound fiscal course. Otherwise, the risk of a debt crisis, sustained and elevated inflation, foreign currency crisis will increase. No country is immune from such crises once they reach their debt tolerance threshold. That the U.S. has a higher threshold than many other states does not mean that it can avoid such a crisis should it remain on its current fiscal path. But that is still not a near-term risk.
3. As the U.S. fiscal challenge is not a near-term risk, the U.S. has time to make the policy corrections necessary to avoid that situation. Whether the U.S. will learn from the experience of other states facing a similar threat or wait until a crisis unfolds remains to be seen. But for now, the U.S. still has sufficient market confidence that it can leverage and time to make adjustments.
4. Other incipient risks involve declining relative competitiveness. Stagnation in the nation's educational attainment level relative to other states is troubling. A fragmented and piecemeal employment services market helps prolong non-structural unemployment. Recent declines in U.S. corporate R&D relative to international firms is also worrisome. The lack of a credible energy policy is also increasing vulnerability to an energy shock, and sadly, the lessons of energy shocks from 1973, 1979, and 2008 have been forgotten or ignored.
5. The world will remain multipolar for the foreseeable future; it never was unipolar hence complaints that the U.S. is losing preeminence are based on a situation that did not exist. The U.S. was the world's most powerful nation and still is. It simply is not preeminent e.g., it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the world.
That the U.S. role in that world will diminish in the longer-term on account of increased economic, military, and political power by countries such as China and India does not mean that the U.S. will become irrelevant anytime soon. It won't. Even well into the future, it will still have the potential to remain a "balancer" when it comes to the application of power and that will provide it with substantial leverage in world affairs beyond the economic realm.
Finally, the rebirth of China to great power status reveals that a decline from such status need not be permanent. In the very distant future, the U.S. can remain a major power given its population, economy, political stability, etc. But it will need to make decisions, some of which could be painful in the short-term, to take that course.
Apocalypse stories these days are all the rage. So is this one. Want proof?
Apocalypse movies have exploded in the last few years... Because it works, it effects people because our lives don't seem as certain as they did a few years ago, but it's also fueled this perception that the end is nye. Maybe not in a biblical sense persay (Although that's part of it), and I completely understand that's not what Dan is suggesting, but it's a culture of the perception of a downfall.
You say something often enough and it'll happen... just saying
BY Charley Reese
(Date of publication unknown)
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
Full article here. Read it once a year whether you need it or not: The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes
Thank you, Quazi!