• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the top reason for the current US economic problem?

What is te top reason for the current US economic criss?

  • Our workforce is not qualified enough to demand high paying jobs in science and technology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Healthcare reform

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    50
"Competition with cheap overseas labor"

Is this a euphemism? Cheap overseas labor? Well that rules out all of south/central America cause technically they aren't oversea.
 
Suggesting that some people buy smaller homes, is some how going to tank the whole economy and throw the world in chaos.
Your argument was completely and utterly ridiculous, so much so, that you had to go to extremes in order to make it.

There are no rhetorical extremes. It's exactly what would happen. There are no other possible outcomes. None of the organizations, people, or industries I mentioned could behave in a different way, which is one reason why public policy on both sides of the aisle stays far away from promoting "your" extreme take on personal fiscal responsibility.

It creates a new industry of smaller home purchases.
The fact is, people don't need multi-room, expansive homes to function.

You're argument was completely ridiculous.

Which automatically and immediately acclimates to the economic needs of the industries that currently depend on large home purchases, global and domestic. With no depression or social upheaval ensuing from the displacement.

Again, a minor blow to the "large home purchases" spurred the decline the global economy has been experiencing for the past four years. What you are suggesting is to destroy it by bypassing it. Even if this happened slowly (which isn't a guarantee since what you are suggesting would be a cultural and economic movement occurring in the private sector).

My argument is rooted in sense, logic, and history both recent and ancient.
 
Last edited:
There are no rhetorical extremes. It's exactly what would happen. There are no other possible outcomes. None of the organizations, people, or industries I mentioned could behave in a different way, which is one reason why public policy on both sides of the aisle stays far away from promoting "your" extreme take on personal fiscal responsibility.

You said housing costs have gotten out of control, I offered an example of how someone could avoid high costs.
You then proceeded to say, "if everyone did that..."

Everyone, won't do that.
You had to go to extremes in order to make an argument.

Which automatically and immediately acclimates to the economic needs of the industries that currently depend on large home purchases, global and domestic. With no depression or social upheaval ensuing from the displacement.

Again, a minor blow to the "large home purchases" spurred the decline the global economy has been experiencing for the past four years. What you are suggesting is to destroy it by bypassing it. Even if this happened slowly (which isn't a guarantee since what you are suggesting would be a cultural and economic movement occurring in the private sector).

My argument is rooted in sense, logic, and history both recent and ancient.

No it isn't.
You had to create an extreme, which won't exist, in order to make your argument.
Your position is rooted in....nothing really.
 
Red herring. The housing industry and how it is priced, functions, and relates to the rest of the economy is too elaborate for these kinds of simple morals.

Fundamentally we do not need the average home size we had then, or even now. You're clearly on the wrong side of that argument.

If that industry did not grow and receive so much investment, what would have happened? It could not have busted, because it wouldn't have bubbled, so that doomsday scenario is illogical. OK, so where would all that investment have gone?

Maybe diversified in a lot of industries rather than so concentrated in real estate? And you think that's NOT a good thing?
And the finance industry would have likewise been more diversified, rather than so heavily invested in real estate, that was bubbled? And this is bad?

People lived beyond their means is why it was as bad as it was. We can also point to bad lending to people so that they can live beyond their means, but ultimately people drove that choice to buy something they could not afford under worst case market conditions. Most idiots who read anything on retirement planning, understand that their retirement investment must take into account worst case market conditions...but the general wisdom on investing hundreds of thousands in real estate didn't factor that in? It failed as it should fail, it was stupid.
 
My best guess:
Globalization, with a significant loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 15-20 years.
Lax regulations on business, and cheap labor overseas.
An aging population with more individuals depending on government for their subsistence.
 
One huge problem is the very nature of the raw money system and its capitalist method of management to attract the most disaffected, emotionally detached utilitarians to positions of power where they create a Darwinianly extreme rabid dog-eat-dog socioeconomic environment at the expense of the quality of life for the masses.

The solution isn't to replace the money system and capitalism, at least not at this point, but to instead refine the rawness out of it a bit by putting governing limits on many aspects of investor and corporate behavior, so as to make the system less rewarding and attractive to sociopaths.

Another huge problem is the continuing rate of population increase, currently putting the planet on target to add the equivalent of both another China and India by 2050, with a considerable percentage increase occurring here in the states.

The solution is to make people aware of the hell on earth that will cause so as to quickly motivate a steep rate of population decrease and present people with the necessary technology to 100% safely and effectively prevent creating undesired conceptions.
 
You said housing costs have gotten out of control, I offered an example of how someone could avoid high costs.
You then proceeded to say, "if everyone did that..."

Everyone, won't do that.
You had to go to extremes in order to make an argument

"Everyone" would be required to do it to avoid private debt at its current levels. Or rather, too many people would have to do it to avoid incurring private debt to an economically meaningful degree. I think the more important numbers were the millions.

And it assumes that private debt has little usefulness in a capitalist society. Private debt was great until wages flat lined, when the goal was to keep someone on the doll during the younger period of their life and then let them go. Now it is to keep people in debt perpetually.

Fundamentally we do not need the average home size we had then, or even now. You're clearly on the wrong side of that argument.

In terms of what? In terms of personal comfort, no, but even there there are issues at stake. In terms of how industries function, clearly they needed both to grow and not fail to remain strong. Because they didn't become weak themselves until it stopped growing and failed.

If that industry did not grow and receive so much investment, what would have happened? It could not have busted, because it wouldn't have bubbled, so that doomsday scenario is illogical. OK, so where would all that investment have gone?

What are you even suggesting or implying? This isn't a nationalized economy. No single person or agency controls what products gain traction in value or what becomes economically important.

Maybe diversified in a lot of industries rather than so concentrated in real estate? And you think that's NOT a good thing?
And the finance industry would have likewise been more diversified, rather than so heavily invested in real estate, that was bubbled? And this is bad?

I wasn't defending the situation with the housing market from a moral point of view, I was pointing out dependencies and arrangements on a global scale that were being overlooked. In terms of how things "should" work I've kept my own counsel.

People lived beyond their means is why it was as bad as it was. We can also point to bad lending to people so that they can live beyond their means, but ultimately people drove that choice to buy something they could not afford under worst case market conditions. Most idiots who read anything on retirement planning, understand that their retirement investment must take into account worst case market conditions...but the general wisdom on investing hundreds of thousands in real estate didn't factor that in? It failed as it should fail, it was stupid.

The system didn't truly fail because it got bailed out. While it may have been stupid and deserved to fail, it was too central to global financial operations.
 
Last edited:
"Everyone" would be required to do it to avoid private debt at its current levels. Or rather, too many people would have to do it to avoid incurring private debt to an economically meaningful degree. I think the more important numbers were the millions.

No they wouldn't.
There are other factors in levels of private debt.

Vehicles and vehicle loans, pre recession were outrageous.
People were buying new cars at a rate of 1 per 2 years, while average vehicle loans were at 5 years.
There were loads of other debt issues at play.

Not to mention the varying incomes of the population at large and the varying levels of debt affordability.
 
No they wouldn't.
There are other factors in levels of private debt.

Vehicles and vehicle loans, pre recession were outrageous.
People were buying new cars at a rate of 1 per 2 years, while average vehicle loans were at 5 years.
There were loads of other debt issues at play.

Not to mention the varying incomes of the population at large and the varying levels of debt affordability.

My arguments apply to automobile industry similarly.

The housing market was more of a case study, since it is just part of a broader trend in multiple industries.
 
Last edited:
FAIL - WAR NOT INCLUDED IN POLL ...

*Author Stephen Glain: $10 Trillion missing from Pentagon since 1991* :* Information Clearing House News

Report: Military Blew $1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11 | Mother Jones

The War On Waste - CBS News


"At this point in history when the degree of wealth inequality has reached such staggering proportions that the richest 400 people have the same wealth as the bottom 154,000,000 people, when unemployment and foreclosures rates are high, when tens of millions can’t afford health care and students can’t afford to go to college, those in power are fearful that the people will rise up."

OCCUPY: Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States.
 
Having multi-room, expansive homes is a luxury.

Americans better get used to living in smaller quarters.

Manufacturing jobs are heading over to China. They won't come back until the union blue collar people accept pay cuts of 40 percent.

We'll make sure they won't be homeless. We'll build tenement housing across the country for these workers.
 
It's probably a a combination of factors, but what would you say is the primary reason for the US economic problems?

A personallly I attribute the greater weight of our situation on cheap overseas labor competing with relative high income American incomes needed due to our higher cost of living that has reached a peak in 2012. You can't buy a nice home in America for $20,000. You can in Mumbai.


Mumbai Property Rates |Real Estate Mumbai|

YouTube - Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv

I think you are right that it is a combination of factors, but I would have to say the top reason is the financial deregulation over the last 30 years. Especially the dismantling of the firewall that used to separate investment banks and commercial banks which allowed the creation of banks too big to fail.
 
Last edited:
Smeagol, you had a nice list of reasons plus one person. A person is not a reason. What a person did could be a reason. Why did you do that? Once you start there are many names that should be listed.
 
Americans better get used to living in smaller quarters.

Manufacturing jobs are heading over to China. They won't come back until the union blue collar people accept pay cuts of 40 percent.

We'll make sure they won't be homeless. We'll build tenement housing across the country for these workers.

We used to own one home, but we saw the bubble coming. Now we own three. And, the rooms are not smaller. We started on this about 5 1/2 years ago. Just closed on the 3rd a month ago. We have about the same amount of money invested in homes now as then. We own 2 outright and one has a low interest mortgage. Some leadership in America allowed us to do this. Isn't it wonderful?
 
Last edited:
Americans better get used to living in smaller quarters.

Manufacturing jobs are heading over to China. They won't come back until the union blue collar people accept pay cuts of 40 percent.

We'll make sure they won't be homeless. We'll build tenement housing across the country for these workers.

Manufacturing is not heading to China.
Robots have displaced Americans, because they're better employees/workers.
 
Manufacturing is not heading to China.
Robots have displaced Americans, because they're better employees/workers.

Agreed. The U.S. is the top manufacturing economy in the world (and by quite a bit!) and has been since WWII.
 
You are aware that "more walls, rooms, etc" are the only things setting us apart from the Dark Ages? The fact people want and are capable of such things is what spurs the technological and economic advancement of civilization to begin with.

If your proposal became the cultural and economic norm for avoiding the private debt that is plunging the middle class into poverty, expect the following consequences:

(1) Housing sector utterly destroyed
(2) Financing sector heavily damaged
(3) All venture capitalism destroyed as a result of (2)
(4) Broader economic recession due to (1), (2), and (3) to a lesser extent
(4) Increased social unrest due to perceptions that the political and economic elite forced the general population to such extremes to survive in accordance with pre-existing trends, as well as to capture a larger share of what can still be had
(5) Bigger, more intrusive government to address an increasingly unruly and transient population
(6) Disorder on an international scale due to the recessions and political upheaval in the nation with the greatest influence in the world
(7) American enemies and rivals suffer themselves, but also make military, economic, and diplomatic strides in the power vaccum -- both due to (6), paving the way for a formation of a world order very hostile to a vastly weakened United States

Pretty much everything about the "New World Order" depends on Americans not just wanting to "beat the Joneses", but also being able to do it.

You prove that treehuggers are just squeaky-voiced idealistic fools, but dangerous enemies of the human race. The proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing.
 
"Competition with cheap overseas labor"

Is this a euphemism? Cheap overseas labor? Well that rules out all of south/central America cause technically they aren't oversea.

We can't say "foreign" labor because the multiculties will accuse us of being Big Meanies who don't believe in international brotherhood. There is an Internet fatwa against national pride.
 
Because the geeks ended up in control and the ones that used to bully them ended up at the bottom of the scale. Revenge is sweet sometimes.
Not if you have to become an escapist geek weirdo in order to get revenge. In order to create submissive Cash Cows for capitalists, the indentured-servitude education of geeks turns normal kids into bitter social rejects.
 
It's probably a a combination of factors, but what would you say is the primary reason for the US economic problems?

A personallly I attribute the greater weight of our situation on cheap overseas labor competing with relative high income American incomes needed due to our higher cost of living that has reached a peak in 2012. You can't buy a nice home in America for $20,000. You can in Mumbai.


Mumbai Property Rates |Real Estate Mumbai|

YouTube - Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv

Consumer demand.

Unfortunately, our economy is based mostly on the smoke-and-mirrors that is deficit spending -- by our government and our people. And the people, unlike our government are tapped out. Until they feel comfortable about spending over their heads again, our economy is going to have a mild case of the flu.
 
Consumer demand.

Unfortunately, our economy is based mostly on the smoke-and-mirrors that is deficit spending -- by our government and our people. And the people, unlike our government are tapped out. Until they feel comfortable about spending over their heads again, our economy is going to have a mild case of the flu.

Ah, but think of how good it will be if it recovers without the deficit spending and people spend on real income. Would be much more stable and CEOs of Credit companies wouldn't be drawing such hugh salaries and bonuses. It would probably kill off a large number of credit companies.
 
Our economy doesn't provide any other options. There are, for example, no "cheap" residences in any substantial sense, whether you are renting or mortgaging.

One will note that NO pre-civilization people expended 25-30% of their gross effort providing shelter alone.

Ya built a shelter and were done with it. A couple days or less for nomads, couple weeks for for a cabin.

We lived in our RV "guerilla" style for a year. Paid $6000 for our attractive classic GMC. Parked in public during the day. Parked overnight residential. Moved every morning.

Counting fuel, $300/mo for all housing and utilities. Remove the necessity to move constantly it drops to about a hundred.

Park it in a legal park it goes up to about the cost of an apartment (imagine that).
 
That's definitely not true.
The expectations of individuals is higher than that.

You could build an insulated "shed" home, on 1 acre or less, with electricity and plumbing, on the cheap.
It's just that most people don't want to do that.

Permits ALONE here in San Diego start at $100,000.

An "efficiency" apartment here with a toilet in the room and community showers is $600/mo.

Nearly half of a full time, low wage job.

Cost of living varies, but 25% of gross is "rule of thumb" for budgeting rent.
 
Back
Top Bottom