Effects of Trump's Intended Trade Policies?

THE REPUBLICAN AUSTERITY DELUSION

Kushinator said:

Nope! It is creating reserves for banks. Reserves are not the same as dollars.

The Fed isn't even a net purchaser of Treasuries anymore

Click to expand...

You may be missing the point. The FED is not proactive regarding US Budget Spending, but reactive. It will sell T-Notes only when it must to provide a balanced budget for the Federal government. (Yes, it transfers the revenue from T-notes to the Treasury. The Fed is also responsible for maintaining a T-note rate at acceptable interest-rate levels.)

Obama, since, 2010 has been forced to run a tight budget by Replicant hawks in the HofR, which they controlled. Now, of course, with Obama gone they will open the purses to feed Donald Dork's giant spendthrift maw. (Like building his stoopid-Wall with Mexico.)

When politicians do what is best for "Their Party" irregardless of what is best for "The Nation", then what you can expect are such shenanigans. Any one on the Right of the spectrum, with any brains, should be ashamed of what the Replicant Party has done these past 8-years during the Great Recession.

Because their one accomplishment has been to extend it! At the great cost of those Americans remaining unemployed. Had they listened to Obama when he asked for Stimulus Spending in 2011, then those jobs might have occurred sooner. They finally did appear, but four l-o-n-g years later. See here, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


What Replicants offered the American voters as an excuse was "Austerity Budgeting" nonsense. (See here: "The austerity delusion", by Paul Krugman.) Excerpt:

All of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited.

Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

Meanwhile, all of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited. Widely touted statistical results were, it turned out, based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures – plus a few outright mistakes – and evaporated under closer scrutiny.

Click to expand...

MY POINT?

We've been lied to by a bunch of Plutocrats whose only political concern is to block any Democrat attempt at raising abjectly-low Upper-income Taxation. Ie., derailing their Revenue Stream of Income-to-Wealth caused by very low fixed-rate taxation]. See here:




They won't admit it, but maintaining the above taxation-schemes was and still is their first and foremost political objective ...

The world has been changing a lot over the past decades, and the pace of change has been increasing. Seems that many in the US, including Trump, are reminiscing about a fabled "good old days" when the US was "winning" in everything. While such a time never really existed, it is true that the US has declined markedly in terms of it's percentage of global GDP, percentage of global population, technological dominance, etc. In many areas, the rest of the world has advanced and caught up, or even surpassed us (cars, consumer electronics, etc.).

We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I don't see how, in today's world and the world of the coming years and decades, we can be competitive in manufacturing without introducing policies which will cause more harm than benefit, possibly to the extent of wrecking the whole economy. We can and should maintain some manufacturing capability, but returning to being a dominant manufacturing power isn't in the cards. It's unfortunate that change has been bad for some Americans, but trying to go backwards in time will just make things worse rather than better.

LessBiased? said:

We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I don't see how, in today's world and the world of the coming years and decades, we can be competitive in manufacturing without introducing policies which will cause more harm than benefit, possibly to the extent of wrecking the whole economy.

Click to expand...

Yes, we can - by innovating.

The iPhone, iPad, etc., are all good examples. We can innovate, but simply cannot seem to manufacture "gadgets" here in the US at a competitive price.

I don't see high-tech/high-cost manufacturing leaving the US simply because of the investments necessary to build abroad justified by lower labor overheads. Also, I don't think all that much is really saved on big-ticket items - such as commercial aircraft and bulldozers. My point: Labor has been lost in selected areas where overseas production could indeed compete, but that was NOT THE CASE in hi-sophistication content of a product.

(And I would even test that logic, because I think Indian Tribes, if we treated nicely them like we China, would could find the means and wherewithal to manufacture a great many products that have since left our shores. The problem is, aside from the Casinos, who ever approached them with the idea of manufacturing?)

Notwithstanding, I was amazed to see on French TV a newsreport about a Chinese company that has set-up a very large plant somewhere in Virginia (either one) that makes "rope". And they are not the only ones. See here from CNN: Chinese manufacturers are setting up shop in the U.S.

So, if the Chinese can come to the US and create start-ups in standard/ordinary industries, why not our own entrepreneurs!*

Somebody please answer THAT question ... !

NB: There is also a good reason to manufacture in the US with preference over Europe. It is the inherent productivity of the US.

GDP per hour worked:
USA - 62.9
EU - 47.3
All OECD Countries - 23.4

GDP per person employed ($):
USA - 119 448
EU - 85 904
All OECD - 88 936

Click to expand...

With those numbers, the US is not looking bad at all. And it needs urgently NO HELP WHATSOEVER from Donald Dork ...

*Believe me, I'll bet those Chinese coming in to create start-ups have no intention whatsoever of going back to China! And they are staying above the law by hiring American workers.

PS: And I am the guy who grew up in Central Massachusetts when plastics industries were the principle manufacturers there. Not a one is left. But, there are numerous hi-tech outfits that benefit from the talent hirable from Boston's plethora of universities.

^

I agree that the US can continue to do well in design, and in manufacturing where the labor component is small and more towards higher tech. Where labor cost is a large component and easily outsourced, I don't see how the US can compete with other countries on a level playing field, since US wage rates are so much higher.

GDP per hour worked may be higher in US because of higher cost, rather than higher productivity output (?).

I have no idea why the Chinese would set up manufacturing in the US - and it does need explanation!

DaveFagan said:

"QE is the Fed generating money to buy back T-Bills and MBSs."

It is printing money with US Treasuries as collateral.

Click to expand...

Treasuries and bonds are not collateral for the federal government. They're debt instruments. They are how the federal government borrows money.

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, it's a promise to repay the purchaser at a certain date, at a certain interest rate. It cannot be used as collateral.

If the government holds onto Treasuries or other US bonds, that is basically saying "the federal government owes money to itself." It is not collateral.


With QE, the Fed was basically buying back outstanding T-Bills and mortgage-backed securities. This was done by generating (virtual) currency out of nowhere. The Treasury Department was NOT specifically issuing T-Bills etc to do this; rather, they were doing their usual borrowing. That's why it increased the money supply.

The idea, again, is that those bonds and MBSs were doing nothing, and the Fed converted them into cash, which the banks could lend. It did not end up causing inflation because we were in a liquidity trap -- i.e. no one wanted to lend, interest rates were as low as possible, there were lots of deflationary pressures. All it did was encourage banks to lend.

China sold/dumped over $600 billion of US Treasuries last year and that should have dropped the dollar, but it didn't.

Click to expand...

Just selling Treasuries doesn't necessarily reduce the value of the dollar. After all, when China sells those Treasuries, someone else has to buy them.

Why do you think China dumped those Treasuries?

Click to expand...

They apparently did it to prop up the value of the yuan. They purchased yuan from the ForEx markets.

They sold Treasuries because they had a huge stockpile of Treasuries. It was an asset they had available.

This did the exact opposite of what Trump claims. Instead of taking moves to lower the value of the yuan (better for exports), China's government intentionally strengthened the yuan. As I said, Trump is years behind in his criticisms of China.

Again, these types of moves don't always work and doesn't always have the effects we expect, because there are dozens of factors affecting something as complex as the value of a currency.

Visbek said:

Treasuries and bonds are not collateral for the federal government. They're debt instruments. They are how the federal government borrows money.

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, it's a promise to repay the purchaser at a certain date, at a certain interest rate. It cannot be used as collateral.

If the government holds onto Treasuries or other US bonds, that is basically saying "the federal government owes money to itself." It is not collateral.


With QE, the Fed was basically buying back outstanding T-Bills and mortgage-backed securities. This was done by generating (virtual) currency out of nowhere. The Treasury Department was NOT specifically issuing T-Bills etc to do this; rather, they were doing their usual borrowing. That's why it increased the money supply.

The idea, again, is that those bonds and MBSs were doing nothing, and the Fed converted them into cash, which the banks could lend. It did not end up causing inflation because we were in a liquidity trap -- i.e. no one wanted to lend, interest rates were as low as possible, there were lots of deflationary pressures. All it did was encourage banks to lend.



Just selling Treasuries doesn't necessarily reduce the value of the dollar. After all, when China sells those Treasuries, someone else has to buy them.



They apparently did it to prop up the value of the yuan. They purchased yuan from the ForEx markets.

They sold Treasuries because they had a huge stockpile of Treasuries. It was an asset they had available.

This did the exact opposite of what Trump claims. Instead of taking moves to lower the value of the yuan (better for exports), China's government intentionally strengthened the yuan. As I said, Trump is years behind in his criticisms of China.

Again, these types of moves don't always work and doesn't always have the effects we expect, because there are dozens of factors affecting something as complex as the value of a currency.

Click to expand...

"generating (virtual) currency out of nowhere."
"Faith" based money, don't ya' know?

"The idea, again, is that those bonds and MBSs were doing nothing, and the Fed converted them into cash,"
The Fed is a private Central Bank, and would have had to BUY them, not convert anything.

"They sold Treasuries because they had a huge stockpile of Treasuries."
The Treasuries were an investment by the Chinese gov't and they found a better investment. Perhaps they lost "FAITH" in the US Dollar.

The US Dollar is an instrument of "FAITH" that generates confidence. If you are an individual and doing something like this, you will be arrested for running a Con Game a/k/a Confidence Game. That is all you need know about US money. It has no collateral. It does have a military in 70% of the World's countries and a propensity to use this military, as in 14 trillion dollars worth of wars since 2002. Does that give Faith/confidence to dollars. To me, it documents war as a bad investment by the US and is another reason the USDollar should be worth about 50% less currency markets. One reason among many, but $14 trillion is nothing to sneeze at. Then there is the 19-20 trillion dollar deficit. Another nail, don't ya' know?

DaveFagan said:

"generating (virtual) currency out of nowhere."
"Faith" based money, don't ya' know?

Click to expand...

...yes, that's true of all fiat currency. Point being?

"The idea, again, is that those bonds and MBSs were doing nothing, and the Fed converted them into cash,"
The Fed is a private Central Bank, and would have had to BUY them, not convert anything.

Click to expand...

The Fed DID buy those bonds and MBSs. They purchased it with cash that the Fed basically summoned out of thin air. Thus, they effectively converted (or swapped or whatever you want to call it) those bonds/MBSs for cash. They took largely illiquid assets off the hands of investors, and gave them highly liquid assets in return, hoping that they would invest and/or lend the cash. That's how QE works.

"They sold Treasuries because they had a huge stockpile of Treasuries."
The Treasuries were an investment by the Chinese gov't and they found a better investment. Perhaps they lost "FAITH" in the US Dollar.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's largely incorrect.

Yes, the Treasuries were an investment. No, they did not find a better investment; they used the proceeds of those sales to purchase their own currency back from the ForEx markets, in order to increase the value of China's currency. They burned up billions of dollars in order to prop up the value of the yuan.

They have not lost faith in the USD at all.

The US Dollar is an instrument of "FAITH" that generates confidence. If you are an individual and doing something like this, you will be arrested for running a Con Game a/k/a Confidence Game. That is all you need know about US money.

Click to expand...

Uh... no, that is a tiny fraction of what anyone commenting on the USD needs to know about fiat currency.

But hey, if you think the US dollar is a con game, I will be happy to relieve you of your dollars. Would you like to send it to my PayPal account? :mrgreen:

It has no collateral. It does have a military in 70% of the World's countries and a propensity to use this military, as in 14 trillion dollars worth of wars since 2002. Does that give Faith/confidence to dollars.

Click to expand...

Not really, no.

What gives people confidence in the dollar is that it's been a fairly stable currency (medium of exchange) for decades. This has been the case independent of any military policies (and economic downturns). The oil industry doesn't trade almost exclusively in dollars because of the might or bellicosity of the US military. European banks don't buy US T-Bills because we have drones. The dollar is a reserve currency for a variety of reasons, but military does not seem to me to be on the forefront.

To me, it documents war as a bad investment by the US and is another reason the USDollar should be worth about 50% less currency markets.

Click to expand...

That... makes no sense whatsoever.

Then there is the 19-20 trillion dollar deficit. Another nail, don't ya' know?

Click to expand...

No, actually, it isn't a nail in anything.

The federal government can easily manage $2 trillion deficits, and that is one reason why the dollar is a reserve currency. In fact, in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown in 2008, investors were shoveling money at US Treasuries at near-zero interest rates, because they preferred to lose money rather than risk it on anything, as there was no way to know whom to trust at that moment.

Sorry, but it is really looking like you don't understand monetary policy, and I suspect it is beyond my powers to explain it to you.

Visbek said:

...yes, that's true of all fiat currency. Point being?



The Fed DID buy those bonds and MBSs. They purchased it with cash that the Fed basically summoned out of thin air. Thus, they effectively converted (or swapped or whatever you want to call it) those bonds/MBSs for cash. They took largely illiquid assets off the hands of investors, and gave them highly liquid assets in return, hoping that they would invest and/or lend the cash. That's how QE works.



Sorry, but that's largely incorrect.

Yes, the Treasuries were an investment. No, they did not find a better investment; they used the proceeds of those sales to purchase their own currency back from the ForEx markets, in order to increase the value of China's currency. They burned up billions of dollars in order to prop up the value of the yuan.

They have not lost faith in the USD at all.



Uh... no, that is a tiny fraction of what anyone commenting on the USD needs to know about fiat currency.

But hey, if you think the US dollar is a con game, I will be happy to relieve you of your dollars. Would you like to send it to my PayPal account? :mrgreen:



Not really, no.

What gives people confidence in the dollar is that it's been a fairly stable currency (medium of exchange) for decades. This has been the case independent of any military policies (and economic downturns). The oil industry doesn't trade almost exclusively in dollars because of the might or bellicosity of the US military. European banks don't buy US T-Bills because we have drones. The dollar is a reserve currency for a variety of reasons, but military does not seem to me to be on the forefront.



That... makes no sense whatsoever.



No, actually, it isn't a nail in anything.

The federal government can easily manage $2 trillion deficits, and that is one reason why the dollar is a reserve currency. In fact, in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown in 2008, investors were shoveling money at US Treasuries at near-zero interest rates, because they preferred to lose money rather than risk it on anything, as there was no way to know whom to trust at that moment.

Sorry, but it is really looking like you don't understand monetary policy, and I suspect it is beyond my powers to explain it to you.

Click to expand...

We have resolved that the dollar is supported by FAITH... FAITH is like religion with pillars you can't reach out and touch. You have yours and I have mine. Faith, like confidence, needs to be reinforced and in your case,, positively to the benefit of the Fed. In my case, negatively because the paradigm esists. I know all about the supports you verbalize to give confidence to the USDollar. The military agreement that guarantees Saudi Arabia security in exchange for pricing OIL in USDollars. That was initiated because the USA defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement by not honoring the gold agreement when DeGaulle wanted to trade back France's surplus USDollars. OOPS, out goes currency backed by gold and silver, a/k/a real money. When money was not 'FAITH' based. As religions spin wondrous tales to reinforce faith in parishioners of the power of their God, so do economists spin wondrous tales of faith of the power of their RESERVE currency. That defines FAITH based currency. Mechanisms, instruments, etc. are the Rosary beads, prayer beads, and communions of the economic brotherhood. Perhaps hoodwinkers all, don't ya' know? Saddam Hussein priced Iraq's OIL in Euros and look what happened to him from a military standpoint.

DaveFagan said:

We have resolved that the dollar is supported by FAITH... FAITH is like religion with pillars you can't reach out and touch. You have yours and I have mine. Faith, like confidence, needs to be reinforced and in your case,, positively to the benefit of the Fed. In my case, negatively because the paradigm esists.

Click to expand...

So what?

Even if we went back on the gold standard, the value of a currency would still be based on market forces and monetary policy. Nothing in this world has any sort of inherent purchasing power.

I know all about the supports you verbalize to give confidence to the USDollar. The military agreement that guarantees Saudi Arabia security in exchange for pricing OIL in USDollars. That was initiated because the USA defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement by not honoring the gold agreement when DeGaulle wanted to trade back France's surplus USDollars. OOPS, out goes currency backed by gold and silver, a/k/a real money. When money was not 'FAITH' based.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Why am I not surprised that you're a gold bug?

Hard currency is just as easy to screw up as a fiat currency. Gold and silver are just commodities, which can be manipulated by governments and private entities alike. Commodity currencies cause all sorts of other problems, the most prominent being a whipsaw between inflation and deflation.

But thanks for relieving me of any need to take your statements seriously. Thanks for playing.

Visbek said:

So what?

Even if we went back on the gold standard, the value of a currency would still be based on market forces and monetary policy. Nothing in this world has any sort of inherent purchasing power.



:roll:

Why am I not surprised that you're a gold bug?

Hard currency is just as easy to screw up as a fiat currency. Gold and silver are just commodities, which can be manipulated by governments and private entities alike. Commodity currencies cause all sorts of other problems, the most prominent being a whipsaw between inflation and deflation.

But thanks for relieving me of any need to take your statements seriously. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

And I continue to take your statements on "FAITH."

GONE UP-MARKET

LessBiased? said:

The world has been changing a lot over the past decades, and the pace of change has been increasing. Seems that many in the US, including Trump, are reminiscing about a fabled "good old days" when the US was "winning" in everything. While such a time never really existed ...

Click to expand...

That time really did exist. It was the post-war years when most of advanced production came from two geographical areas - the US and Europe. The latter was devastated and it took a good twenty-years postwar for it get back up from on-its-knees.

LessBiased? said:

It is true that the US has declined markedly in terms of it's percentage of global GDP ...

Click to expand...

In every year (except the Great Recession) GDP in America has increased since 1950. See here from the FED: GDP. That's all that matters. The US need not dominate world trade as a primary goal; rather, it must see to the well-being of its own people. Given that chart linked, I'd say "we, the sheeple" don't have much to complain about as regards the economic development historically of the nation. We are a pretty lucky people.

LessBiased? said:

How, in today's world and the world of the coming years and decades, can we be competitive in manufacturing without introducing policies that will cause more harm than benefit.

Click to expand...

Why should we not be "competitive" in manufacturing? But on a smaller scale than before, since we are facing monumental competition in the production of "cheaper goods that were once the major part of our output". Manufacturing, like engineering, in America has gone up-market and what is left is in pretty good shape.

Let's not forget that the essential part of manufacturing is the conception and adoption of New Products. Which the US is pretty damn good at doing.

But we cannot bash out pots-'n-pans at a price Americans want to pay, because Americans won't work at the slave-wages that are competitive in China. (Wanna work for an average shop-floor manufacturing wage that varies from $0.5 to $3 an hour? Me neither.)

LessBiased? said:

We can and should maintain some manufacturing capability, but returning to being a dominant manufacturing power isn't in the cards. It's unfortunate that change has been bad for some Americans, but trying to go backwards in time will just make things worse rather than better.

Click to expand...

Quite right.

So why did Joe Bloggs sweeping floors instead of operating a milling-machine in Dubuque vote for Donald Dork? What did the Dork promise? The return of manufacturing at decent wages? From the guy who ALWAYS HIRED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AT THE CHEAPEST HOURLY WAGE!?! Didn't happen?

See here: What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower - excerpt:

In the summer of 1980, Donald Trump faced a big problem. For six months, undocumented Polish laborers had been clearing the future site of Trump Tower, his signature real estate project on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, where he now lives, maintains his private offices and hosts his presidential campaign.

The men were putting in 12-hour shifts with inadequate safety equipment at subpar wages that their contractor paid sporadically, if at all. A lawyer for many of the Poles demanded that the workers be paid or else he would serve Trump with a lien on the property. One Polish worker even went to Trump's office to ask him for money in person, according to sworn testimony and a deposition filed under oath in a court case.

For help, Trump turned to Daniel Sullivan, a ... labor consultant, FBI informant and future officer of the Teamsters Union. "Donald told me he had difficulties ...", Sullivan later testified in the case. "That he had some illegal Polish employees on the job."

Sullivan had been helping Trump negotiate a casino deal in New Jersey ..., and he testified that he was shocked by Trump's admission. "I think you are nuts," Sullivan testified that he told Trump. "You are here negotiating a lease in Atlantic City for a casino license and you are telling me you have got illegal employees on the job."

For 36 years, Trump has denied knowingly using undocumented workers to demolish the building that would be replaced with Trump Tower in 1980. After Senator Marco Rubio raised the issue of undocumented Polish workers during a Republican primary debate this year, Trump described himself as removed from the problem. "I hire a contractor. The contractor then hires the subcontractor," he said. "They have people. I don't know. I don't remember, that was so many years ago, 35 years ago."

Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:

And I continue to take your statements on "FAITH."

Click to expand...

Faith in what? The price of gold as a foundation for our monetary systems (ie., money-supply?)

We got out of that bind a great many decades ago. It never worked all that well.

Nonetheless, there are both Advantages and Disadvantages to the Gold Standard. See here.

I suggest that disadvantages weigh more in terms of the economic stability of a nation.

Yours to decide which is more important ...

Lafayette said:

GONE UP-MARKET

That time really did exist. It was the post-war years when most of advanced production came from two geographical areas - the US and Europe. The latter was devastated and it took a good twenty-years postwar for it get back up from on-its-knees.



In every year (except the Great Recession) GDP in America has increased since 1950. See here from the FED: GDP. That's all that matters. The US need not dominate world trade as a primary goal; rather, it must see to the well-being of its own people. Given that chart linked, I'd say "we, the sheeple" don't have much to complain about as regards the economic development historically of the nation. We are a pretty lucky people.



Why should we not be "competitive" in manufacturing? But on a smaller scale than before, since we are facing monumental competition in the production of "cheaper goods that were once the major part of our output". Manufacturing, like engineering, in America has gone up-market and what is left is in pretty good shape.

Let's not forget that the essential part of manufacturing is the conception and adoption of New Products. Which the US is pretty damn good at doing.

But we cannot bash out pots-'n-pans at a price Americans want to pay, because Americans won't work at the slave-wages that are competitive in China. (Wanna work for an average shop-floor manufacturing wage that varies from $0.5 to $3 an hour? Me neither.)



Quite right.

So why did Joe Bloggs sweeping floors instead of operating a milling-machine in Dubuque vote for Donald Dork? What did the Dork promise? The return of manufacturing at decent wages? From the guy who ALWAYS HIRED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AT THE CHEAPEST HOURLY WAGE!?! Didn't happen?

See here: What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower - excerpt:

Click to expand...

I generally agree, but a few comments:

- The US may have been "winning" more during those "good old days", but the GDP per capita was still much lower than today, civil rights were a big issue, and even then the US was less than 40% of world GDP.

- GDP per capita is what matters most for individuals (on average), but my point in mentioning percentage of world GDP is that our negotiating power is a lot less today than before, since we're down to about 15-20% of world GDP. We in the US like to think that we're the current "Middle Kingdom", but our footprint has diminished considerably during the past half century.

- Mexico is our third largest buyer of our exports, buying twice as much as China, and almost as much as the entire EU. The trade imbalance with Mexico isn't huge. If Mexico counters with a tariff on US goods, the US will be taking a serious economic hit, not just Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States.

Visbek said:

Treasuries and bonds are not collateral for the federal government. They're debt instruments. They are how the federal government borrows money.

Click to expand...

Yes they are, and when the sales are made, the money is "credited" within the Budget as "positive". Whilst the annual cost of servicing the debt is counted as "negative". Nothing wrong with that for as long as a nation pays the "debt servicing charges".

And that is where the "fit-hits-the-shan". Countries that have perpetual difficulty closing their national budgets because expenditures exceed taxation income turn to borrowing money to do so. This is what happened to the soft-under-belly of the EU - because the governments had high Unemployment Insurance payments to make.

Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece all had/have national-budget accounting ... uh, "challenges". For the moment, the European Central Bank (supported financially mainly by Germany) is constantly lending EU countries funds for national budgets and sells Euro-bonds to fund it. The US does the same by having the Fed sell T-Notes.

For as long as the Chinese want to hold T-Notes (meaning their value is stable against their national currency) they do so. The day they sell-off those T-Notes massively* is not one the US Dept. of the Treasury wants to see happen.

*From here:

The U.S. debt to China is $1.115 trillion, as of October 2016. That's 29 percent of the $3.841 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $19.9 trillion debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself.

Click to expand...

LessBiased? said:

- The US may have been "winning" more during those "good old days", but the GDP per capita was still much lower than today, civil rights were a big issue, and even then the US was less than 40% of world GDP.

Click to expand...

Yes, GDP per person has continually increased in America with the exception of a short period in 2008/10 when the Great Recession occurred. See here: FRED-Real Gross Domestic Product per Capita.

But where did that GDP go in terms of income for Mr.&Mrs. FamilyNextDoor? Here:


The Hispanics and Blacks are NOT getting their fair-part (meaning average) income share.

LessBiased? said:

We've not moved enough people up from a No Education to PostSecondary Education, which the key to a better level of income. What the above infographic shows is, according to race, very different aptitudes for learning. I would not put anybody in a box, but blacks have got to concentrate on learning, and they are the poorest section of our society in terms of overall income.

Click to expand...

Compared to the rest of the world, and particularly Europe, the US is doing pretty-damn-good. I see no reason, aside from race, why anybody should feel neglected if they have made an effort to obtain a decent Tertiary Education.

Which is the case for only about half of all students graduating from High School today*. That is just not good enough

*Rationale behind that percentage (from the Dept. of Education)
-82% graduation rate of high-school students
-Average of 60% graduation rate with postsecondary degrees (vocational, 2- or 4-year)
-Multiply the two percentages aboveand we find that only about half of all secondary-school graduates are getting a postsecondary degree to prepared them for a decent career income.

Lafayette said:

Faith in what? The price of gold as a foundation for our monetary systems (ie., money-supply?)

We got out of that bind a great many decades ago. It never worked all that well.

Nonetheless, there are both Advantages and Disadvantages to the Gold Standard. See here.

I suggest that disadvantages weigh more in terms of the economic stability of a nation.

Yours to decide which is more important ...

Click to expand...

You are saying that Money supported by FAITH is solid. Religions are supported by FAITH. So FIAT MONEY is the same as religion. Belief. Confidence. Symbolism. Edifices. Imagery. Illusions. Miracles. Mystical power. Now we compare that to MONEY that you can actually touch. Gold/silver, etc. MONEY because of its' scarcity. Volker's seesaw inflation/deflation ride at the helm of Fiat Currency cast shade upon your stability fantasy.
/

DaveFagan said:

You are saying that Money supported by FAITH is solid. Religions are supported by FAITH. So FIAT MONEY is the same as religion. Belief. Confidence. Symbolism. Edifices. Imagery. Illusions. Miracles. Mystical power. Now we compare that to MONEY that you can actually touch. Gold/silver, etc. MONEY because of its' scarcity. Volker's seesaw inflation/deflation ride at the helm of Fiat Currency cast shade upon your stability fantasy.
/

Click to expand...

Your illogic is breathtaking ...

Lafayette said:

Your illogic is breathtaking ...

Click to expand...

Pray tell, dear Guru, what is illogical about comparing "FAITHS?" The word faith defines this discussion. It is not arbitrary, surreal, or a fantasy, but a reality.
/

DaveFagan said:

Pray tell, dear Guru, what is illogical about comparing "FAITHS?" The word faith defines this discussion. It is not arbitrary, surreal, or a fantasy, but a reality.
/

Click to expand...

Faith is belief, which is intensely personal.

One cannot compare an entire nation or even part of it on personally held beliefs. Based upon what criteria of comparison? Which is the better belief? How many?

Beliefs, religious or political, are sacred and incomparable. They just "are". Communism made the supreme mistake of outlawing all other political beliefs, with the sole exception of Communism. It thus became like a religious doctrine.

If your belief in a Supreme Being entails running up a hill and urinating on a rock three times a day, who am I to question that "faith" regardless of how strange I may think it is?

When a belief is practiced, in a church or the voting booth, they are personal and private. We can debate political outcomes, but religious tenets should remain off-limits ...

NB: Just my thoughts on the matter, perhaps not yours.

Lafayette said:

Faith is belief, which is intensely personal.

One cannot compare an entire nation or even part of it on personally held beliefs. Based upon what criteria of comparison? Which is the better belief? How many?

Beliefs, religious or political, are sacred and incomparable. They just "are". Communism made the supreme mistake of outlawing all other political beliefs, with the sole exception of Communism. It thus became like a religious doctrine.

If your belief in a Supreme Being entails running up a hill and urinating on a rock three times a day, who am I to question that "faith" regardless of how strange I may think it is?

When a belief is practiced, in a church or the voting booth, they are personal and private. We can debate political outcomes, but religious tenets should remain off-limits ...

NB: Just my thoughts on the matter, perhaps not yours.

Click to expand...

FIAT Curency is "FAITH" based. "Money because we say it is." Religion is "FAITH" based and their God is because they say it is. Beliefs in both cases. My analogy is precise and accurate.
/

DaveFagan said:

FIAT Curency is "FAITH" based. "Money because we say it is." Religion is "FAITH" based and their God is because they say it is. Beliefs in both cases. My analogy is precise and accurate.
/

Click to expand...

If you want to believe that, I wish you luck.

Do tell me when God starts printing money again. :roll:

That ended in the bible when manna stopped dropping from heaven for the Isrealites wandering in the desert ...

Lafayette said:

who am I to question that "faith" regardless of how strange I may think it is?

Click to expand...

Any logical person can question faith in stupid stuff. Christianity is based on Christ who left nothing in writing so the religion or philosophy evolved as science and philosophy evolved. Do you understand?