The economy has gotten better, without question, relative to what we were experiencing a few short years ago.
generally we've flatlined. all the increases have been in productivity, not necessarily production.
We should be doing more stimulus, but that's unlikely.
and thank goodness. massive shifting of resources from the private to the public sector is a huge source of why we haven't recovered.
Even without it the economy will move toward a better equilibrium as pent-up business and consumer demand ramp up and as the stock of defaulted property works its way through the market.
where is this magical consumer demand going to come from? our consumers are heavily leveraged, and still deeply underwater. 2006 wasn't the natural state of the consumer economy - that was us on a methamphetamine high. defaulted property is still mass-owned by the government (and when they sell it - which eventually they will have to - housing will go down
again)
I'm not predicting strong growth -- just gradual, mild growth.
which is insufficient to do anything other than leave us treading water until the baby boomers crash the entitlement system. here in about 6-10 years.
Absolute nonsense. Our taxes are far too low, and particularly on the top income groups
actually
America has the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world
irrespective, if our rates were higher, we wouldn't be pulling in any more revenue. look for yourself:
static scoring of tax increases or cuts is nothing more than moonshine for the simple enough reason that people respond to changing incentives. when you hike taxes on top income earners, you simply give them powerful incentives to minimize their tax exposure rather than behave in the productive (ie: good for the rest of us) ways that caused them to become top income earners.
The could and should be raised to 60-70% on amounts over severl milion dollars. It would raise substantially more revenue.
wrong, because people will follow their incentives, and the wealthy are the ones best positioned to do so. states that attempt to close their budget gaps by taxing the wealthy extra have only seen revenue
fall as the wealthy follow their incentives - leaving state budgets worse off than they began
again and
again and
again.
I agree that Medicare has to be reformed in a significant way, in addition to implementing significant cuts in military spending.
this is incorrect - our economy is dependent upon global trade, and global trade is underpinned by the security provided by the US Military. You draw back from a forward leaning defense posture as you are suggesting, and our global trade will collapse, leading not only to much misery, pain, and loss, here, but also a follow-on loss of revenues
greater than your 'saved' previous expenditures. it's the fiscal equivalent of eating seed corn.
It will happen when it absolutely has to happen and not before.
which means that, like Greece, we will have to start cutting benefits and throwing off
current retirees. boomers are not exactly known as a generation for their selfless desire to give of themselves to help out future generations, and us putting off the inevitable means that not only will we be significantly more constrained in our available options, but we will spark at
best a deep generational conflict within our body politic. so yeah. that'll turn out well.
The housing market will probably start to recover in 2013 or 2014
what information are you basing that analysis on?
More nonsense. Greece has been ridiculously irresponsible in its budgeting. Italy and Spain have sustainable economies.
Greece has been irresponsible; however, it, Italy, and Spain do
not have sustainable economies, for the simple enough reason that they have neglected to produce enough people to 'sustain' them. You need a fertility rate of 2.1 in order to just maintain your populace. no society has ever dipped below 1.8 and come back. Greece, Italy, and Spain are all sitting at about 1.4, and have been for decades. this ponzi scheme that we in the west call our retirement entitlements is utterly dependent upon a larger generation
each generation of new workers to fund the old - and the Club Med countries have forgotten to have one. Boomers largely dicked the dog on this as well (though not as bad as they), which is why we, too, are in for severe trouble with our entitlement system.
Iran getting nukes wouldn't change anything, as they would never use them.
yes they absolutely would. for the simple enough reason that these are people who really truly believe that doing so would unite the Islamic world under their banner, reinstituting the Caliphate under the newly arrived 13th Imam, who would launch the final (successful) war to conquer the unbelievers and unite the world under the banner of Islam. As the protector of the Holy City of Qom, and neighbor to the Holy City of Najaf, and (under the new leadership) protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, Allah would protect the Iranian regime from any counterstrike. yes. they actually really truly do believe this.
let me draw this out in a little more detail for you:
1. the Middle East remains a strategic center of gravity in the world for two major reasons: the oil and the canal, and huge chunks of the world economy are dependent on both of those. instability in the region threatens those two facets, thus threatening the world (and our) economy.
2. the Middle East is inherently unstable, as demonstrated by nothing better than recent events. Tyrannical governments keep their populace in line with the stick of the mukhaberat and the carrot of the welfare state based on revenues generated from nationalized resources (read: oil and the Suez). But that rentier state carrot is intensely vulnerable to falling revenues and - as the Iranian Shah and Mubarak learned to their chagrin - can rapidly inspire revolution followed by replacement by radical (and themselves inherently destabilizing) elements. Internally, the Middle East is a bubbling cauldron, and the resources upon which much of the worlds' economy is based right there in the middle.
Internationally, among the Sunnis, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both consider themselves the natural leaders, and have already proven willing in Yemen to shoot at each other over that disagreement. The Iraqi's also consider themselves the natural leader of the Arab world, but lately they haven't been a serious contender. The Saudis are currently attempting to take control over the region through the exportation of Wahabism, which is itself inherently destabilizing, as it preaches the overthrow of the National-Socialist model governments left over from the 60's and 70's in Egypt (check) and Pakistan, (as well, obviously, as the democracy - as much as it exists - in Lebanon and in Israel) followed by the violent unification of the region under a single banner, followed by an invasion of the rest of the world. They aren't kidding about that part, and we are idiots if we fail to take them at their word, especially as they seem to have just succeeded in part A of step 1, the removal of the Mubarak regime.
The Iranians are the largest terror-exporting nation in the world, and they are very, very good at it. The IRGC, and in particular the Quds forces, have fostered the growth of Hezbollah (the real deadliest terrorist network in the world - Al Quada was their student, not the other way around), Hamas, and even (through proxies) Al Quada. They are currently waging a campaign to destroy the Lebanese government, attacking us in Afghanistan, seeking to gain hegemonic influence over Iraq, and are strengthening ties with Syria and Turkey in an attempt to build a base with which to challenge the US and Saudi Arabia for dominance of the region. Part of that struggle (they assume) including the destruction of Israel. The leadership of that nation Really Believes that the 13th Imam is coming soon, and that they must kick off international Jihad in order for him to arrive and bring about the End Times - and again, we are fools if we fail to take them at their word on that.
3. the region, thus, needs an overpowering, hegemon if it is to remain stable enough to ensure the non-collapse of the world economy. Someone has to impose order and keep these nutjobs from destroying the ability of the world to access the oil and the suez. There is only one nation currently on the planet with the capacity to perform this task: the US. The US Fifth Fleet, currently headuquartered in Bahrain, is the major (and perhaps only realistic) force for stability in that region, contending with numerous, powerful forces for instability.
4. Withdrawal or severe downdrawl of US Forces would create a power vacuum and kick off fights within the sunni community and between Iran and Saudi Arabia for regional dominance. Shiite Iran is seeking to get nukes. Syria has had a nuclear facility already destroyed by the Israelis. Sunni Pakistan (see: Wahhabi plans for governments, the overthrow and replacement of) already has them. In the face of a US Withdrawal, Saudi Arabia certainly would start developing her own.
Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they
don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, and may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify domestic support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their
own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.
realistically speaking, our
best case scenario in a US withdrawal from the region in the face of Iranian nuclear development is that China takes the region in hand and merely diverts all of it's oil to itself; thereby only partially collapsing the world economy. I didn't say I think that's likely - I just said that if we are stupid enough to do that, then that's the best end result left.
