The Trump Economy

[BeginnersMind]

34 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  So what do you propose?  Spend nothing and assume humanity has evolved beyond the point of open aggression towards others?

 

Because that’s what I said, right?

 

There is no sacred cow, including the military. Including, well, everything. But in this case I’m reacting to Trump patting himself on the back for working to spend more than he’s taking in. Yay us. 

 

Lower taxes and spend more is the Rep way. It can’t ever cause a problem right?

37 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Er, no thanks.   ?

 

Directed at the tweet, not the paster. I would never say that to you. I’m married for 25 years. My life is set on that front. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BeginnersMind said:

 

Because that’s what I said, right?

 

There is no sacred cow, including the military. Including, well, everything. But in this case I’m reacting to Trump patting himself on the back for working to spend more than he’s taking in. Yay us. 

 

Lower taxes and spend more is the Rep way. It can’t ever cause a problem right?

May I ask whether you’ve chosen to pay more than what your tax form says? If not...you’re a big part of the problem. Send it in! Send it in! Send it in.

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Directed at the tweet, not the paster. I would never say that to you. I’m married for 25 years. My life is set on that front. 

My mistake.  ? 

[BeginnersMind]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

May I ask whether you’ve chosen to pay more than what your tax form says? If not...you’re a big part of the problem. Send it in! Send it in! Send it in.

 

Uhh what?

 

I’d like Congress to be some version of as fiscally responsible with its spending as Rand Paul advocates. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BeginnersMind said:

 

Uhh what?

 

I’d like Congress to be some version of as fiscally responsible with its spending as Rand Paul advocates. 

Yea right! We’re $21 Trillion in debt. Start sending in your money. Time to start bailing water. What’s stopping you?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

We spend almost 40% of the world’s defense spending and nearly 3x of China, who is number 2. Blow me. 

 

China's 2020 defense budget is an estimated $180 billion.

 

DoD's human resources spending is $160 billion.  Only O&M is larger - $270 billion.  And the single biggest line item in those two areas is healthcare - $33B, more than the next three biggest line items combined ($10B for Navy depot maintenance, $9B for Air Force contractor support, and $9B for Army base ops).

 

Defense spending is a problem...but the problem isn't what everyone thinks it is.  

[GG]

2 hours ago, TPS said:

It simply means that government spends more $s into the economy than it takes out in taxes. 

 

I didn't ask for the definition.

 

Deficit spending is a stupid made up term to deflect from what is happening.  It's only used when explaining away spending above your immediate resources.

 

You never say that you're deficit spending when you take out a mortgage on your house or buy or lease a car.  You borrow the money.   You don't deficit spend.

 

Finance people don't care about the deficit as much they do about the source of the deficit.  You borrow either against your assets or against your future earnings potential.   One is a far better base to keep borrowing over a long term.   That's why talking only about the deficit or saying that deficit spending stimulates the economy misses the forest for the trees.

[Foxx]

8 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Because that’s what I said, right?

 

There is no sacred cow, including the military. Including, well, everything. But in this case I’m reacting to Trump patting himself on the back for working to spend more than he’s taking in. Yay us. ...

so... you'll be blowing yourself?

[BeginnersMind]

8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yea right! We’re $21 Trillion in debt. Start sending in your money. Time to start bailing water. What’s stopping you?

 

I have no problem paying more taxes. But nothing in Congress's behavior indicates that increased tax revenue will be used responsibly. 

 

If Congress slashed its expenditures and had any backbone to show it was taking spending seriously, I would actually welcome a tax increase. THat would be an investment in a chance for smaller government and a strong future for America. I’d look at that like a JFK moon challenge. 

[Doc Brown]

Hmmmmm....

 

 

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Doc Brown

[BeginnersMind]

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Hmmmmm....

 

 

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt

 

 

The Republican Party has no credibility with respect to spending. Anytime an R politician not named Paul talks about financial responsibility, people should burst out laughing. 

[TPS]

7 hours ago, GG said:

 

I didn't ask for the definition.

 

Deficit spending is a stupid made up term to deflect from what is happening.  It's only used when explaining away spending above your immediate resources.

 

You never say that you're deficit spending when you take out a mortgage on your house or buy or lease a car.  You borrow the money.   You don't deficit spend.

 

Finance people don't care about the deficit as much they do about the source of the deficit.  You borrow either against your assets or against your future earnings potential.   One is a far better base to keep borrowing over a long term.   That's why talking only about the deficit or saying that deficit spending stimulates the economy misses the forest for the trees.

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between an entity that issues the currency we use and one that does not...

 

you and I can't issue US$s (nor can corporations, states and local governments), so we have to borrow in order to spend in excess of our current resources.

 

The US government, as the monopoly issuer of US$, can spend whatever amount congress appropriates. (The republicans understand this which is why they tend to cut taxes AND increase spending when they.re in the WH.)

 

By law, The treasury has to sell bonds to "fund" spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending), AND the Fed can't DIRECTLY fund the Treasury. The FED, and its system of primary dealers, Ensures that there is NEVER a funding constraint for the US government because it can NEVER run out of a currency it controls.

 

When the US government spends, the Fed credits the deposit of Raytheon AND the reserve account of Raytheon's bank. The bank (a primary dealer) now has the reserves that allows it to purchase bonds at the treasury's next auction, which it is required to do as a primary dealer (which is why treasury auctions always fill--the PDs are required by the Fed to bid). If the Banks have insufficient reserves to purchase new bonds, then the Fed will purchase existing bonds from the banks. In effect, the Fed INDIRECTLY funds the treasury because it can't directly fund it, by law. 

 

This is Not theory, this is how the system works. It  means the US government NEVER faces a financing constraint. It means the US government will always be able spend any $ amount congress appropriates. It means that spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending) raises the demand (sales and profits) for Raytheon's missiles (and if they hire more workers in response, they spend more on consumer goods), which means deficit spending spurs the private sector to create more wealth. 

 

Because you don't understand what "deficit spending" means, you continue to believe the US government has to take from the private sector in order to spend, which makes you believe "government can't create wealth." While the US government doesn't create things, it does inject/create more dollars for the private sector when it spends which spurs the private sector to create more wealth (more Raytheon missiles and workers). 

 

Unfortunately, accepting how US deficit spending works also means the rejection of the conservative philosophy that US government can only spend what it takes from the private sector, and that's too difficult for some to come to grips with. However, the republicans  have no problem with it in practice. 

 

let me point out, as I have in the past, while the US government has no financing constraint, its spending IS constrained by available real resources--labor and capital. If the government increases deficit spending as labor becomes scarce, it can cause inflation. This is why I've said Trump's policies are an interesting experiment for this correct view of government financing. He increased deficit spending when we are near what some considered full employment, pushing the unemployment rate to lows unseen since the 1960s. This suggests there is room for even more deficit spending stimulus.

 

Final point. Only governments that issue debt in their own currency are not financially constrained. State and local governments are required to balance their budgets, so they are financially constrained; Greece issues debt in euros, so it is constrained; many developing economies issue international debt in hard currencies which makes them financially constrained; and most underdeveloped countries fall under the constraint that they lack capacity in real resources, so any attempt to deficit spend is inflationary--increasing spending when you can't produce more things.

 

On a political board that's dominated by conservative ideology, I know most will believe this hogwash. I would hope at some point you would start to question why the US has not had a day of reckoning with its $22 trillion (and growing) debt? Why if deficits are rising under Trump the 10-year US T-bond rate has declined over the past year? Why didn't QE cause inflation to exceed the Fed's 2% target? And why is GG always wrong...? ?

 

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

I have no problem paying more taxes. But nothing in Congress's behavior indicates that increased tax revenue will be used responsibly. 

 

If Congress slashed its expenditures and had any backbone to show it was taking spending seriously, I would actually welcome a tax increase. THat would be an investment in a chance for smaller government and a strong future for America. I’d look at that like a JFK moon challenge. 

Have you even looked at the federal budget? Between entitlement programs and interest on the debt there’s very little discretionary spending at all. But back to the issue...if you’re willing to pay more in taxes, please do so. I’m guessing that I contribute WAY more than you.

[BeginnersMind]

46 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Have you even looked at the federal budget? Between entitlement programs and interest on the debt there’s very little discretionary spending at all. But back to the issue...if you’re willing to pay more in taxes, please do so. I’m guessing that I contribute WAY more than you.

 

That’s a charmingly crass assumption. Should we measure d—-s too?

 

I’d say entitlement programs can be cut substantially. 

 

It’s clear you don’t think paying down the debt is a priority.

 

I’d happily pay more to pay it down if I trusted Congress to take aggressive action to address the problem. Give me a fiscally responsible candidate and I’ll vote for them. As I have in the past. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

That’s a charmingly crass assumption. Should we measure d—-s too?

 

I’d say entitlement programs can be cut substantially. 

 

It’s clear you don’t think paying down the debt is a priority.

 

I’d happily pay more to pay it down if I trusted Congress to take aggressive action to address the problem. Give me a fiscally responsible candidate and I’ll vote for them. As I have in the past. 

Only by a new law (or laws).  Currently, by law, they cannot be touched, and they are the vast majority of the budget. I posted on the last page the information on how much of the budget is predetermined, by law.

 

[Tiberius]

Lol 

 

Trump: I will eliminate U.S. debt in 8 years | TheHill

Apr 2, 2016 · Eliminating that amount of debt in eight years is highly improbable, according to most ... Trump insisted in the interview that “renegotiating all of our deals” would help pay down the debt by ...

[GG]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between an entity that issues the currency we use and one that does not...

 

you and I can't issue US$s (nor can corporations, states and local governments), so we have to borrow in order to spend in excess of our current resources.

What in the world are you talking about?  Please walk across a hall and take an accounting or finance class.

 

US$ is just a form of currency.   People, corporations and states don't have to issue dollars to buy, sell or borrow.  A company's stock is a valid form of currency that doesn't rely at all on what the Treasury or the Fed are doing.   The corporate bond markets are the same, as is the growing cryptocurrency market. 

 

Apple can buy Tesla tomorrow by issuing the EQUIVALENT of $300 billion of new stock tomorrow.  Apple wouldn't be deficit spending to buy Tesla.  They would either borrow, or create currency out of thin air by issuing new stock that is backed by the future earnings potential of the combined company.

 

1 hour ago, TPS said:

 

The US government, as the monopoly issuer of US$, can spend whatever amount congress appropriates. (The republicans understand this which is why they tend to cut taxes AND increase spending when they.re in the WH.)

 

By law, The treasury has to sell bonds to "fund" spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending), AND the Fed can't DIRECTLY fund the Treasury. The FED, and its system of primary dealers, Ensures that there is NEVER a funding constraint for the US government because it can NEVER run out of a currency it controls.

 

When the US government spends, the Fed credits the deposit of Raytheon AND the reserve account of Raytheon's bank. The bank (a primary dealer) now has the reserves that allows it to purchase bonds at the treasury's next auction, which it is required to do as a primary dealer (which is why treasury auctions always fill--the PDs are required by the Fed to bid). If the Banks have insufficient reserves to purchase new bonds, then the Fed will purchase existing bonds from the banks. In effect, the Fed INDIRECTLY funds the treasury because it can't directly fund it, by law. 

 

The settlement mechanics of banks' reserves have nothing to do with the fundamental analysis of whether an entity has the wherewithal to repay an obligation.  What matters more to the markets and individuals, the behind the scene mechanics of title transfers or the ability to obtain the mortgage in the first place.   Do we care how Apple creates new treasury stock that is used in the Tesla purchase and how those shares are exchanged for the Tesla shares?  No!  We just care that Apple just issued $300 billion in new stock.

 

You continue to argue that the mechanics of Fed/bank settlements is the important part, while evidence shows that central bank reserves were a minor reason for stabilizing the financial system.  You focus on the financial plumbing that is about 10% of banks' business and are clueless about how the 90% of the business works.

 

1 hour ago, TPS said:

 

This is Not theory, this is how the system works. It  means the US government NEVER faces a financing constraint. It means the US government will always be able spend any $ amount congress appropriates. It means that spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending) raises the demand (sales and profits) for Raytheon's missiles (and if they hire more workers in response, they spend more on consumer goods), which means deficit spending spurs the private sector to create more wealth. 

 

Because you don't understand what "deficit spending" means, you continue to believe the US government has to take from the private sector in order to spend, which makes you believe "government can't create wealth." While the US government doesn't create things, it does inject/create more dollars for the private sector when it spends which spurs the private sector to create more wealth (more Raytheon missiles and workers). 

 

Unfortunately, accepting how US deficit spending works also means the rejection of the conservative philosophy that US government can only spend what it takes from the private sector, and that's too difficult for some to come to grips with. However, the republicans  have no problem with it in practice. 

 

Nobody outside federal government spending uses the term deficit spending, because that doesn't describe what they are doing.   You provided the definition above, which is what everyone else has to deal with when they do not have enough current resources to pay for what they need.   In that sense the government is no different than any other entity anywhere in the world.   

 

There is nothing wrong with proper utilization of credit, because very rarely do your resources line up perfectly with the outflows.   The problem comes up when you continue to outspend your resources.  By calling it deficit spending sweeps the problem under the rug.

 

 

1 hour ago, TPS said:

 

let me point out, as I have in the past, while the US government has no financing constraint, its spending IS constrained by available real resources--labor and capital. If the government increases deficit spending as labor becomes scarce, it can cause inflation. This is why I've said Trump's policies are an interesting experiment for this correct view of government financing. He increased deficit spending when we are near what some considered full employment, pushing the unemployment rate to lows unseen since the 1960s. This suggests there is room for even more deficit spending stimulus.

 

Final point. Only governments that issue debt in their own currency are not financially constrained. State and local governments are required to balance their budgets, so they are financially constrained; Greece issues debt in euros, so it is constrained; many developing economies issue international debt in hard currencies which makes them financially constrained; and most underdeveloped countries fall under the constraint that they lack capacity in real resources, so any attempt to deficit spend is inflationary--increasing spending when you can't produce more things.

 

On a political board that's dominated by conservative ideology, I know most will believe this hogwash. I would hope at some point you would start to question why the US has not had a day of reckoning with its $22 trillion (and growing) debt? Why if deficits are rising under Trump the 10-year US T-bond rate has declined over the past year? Why didn't QE cause inflation to exceed the Fed's 2% target? And why is GG always wrong...? ?

 

 

 

US government borrowing is constrained by the same market forces that hold other governments' borrowings in check.   But the US enjoys structural advantage that no other country can get away with at this point.  In short, no matter how dire the US financial position may seem, the alternatives are much worse.   That's why there hasn't been the inflationary blowback that the economic models predict.

 

There's no reason though that US won't be subject to the single truism of financial markets - you either have access to credit or you don't.  That's the main reason US shouldn't be complacent about its preferred status.

[BeginnersMind]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Only by a new law (or laws).  Currently, by law, they cannot be touched, and they are the vast majority of the budget.

 

So Congress has to do its job? I’m ok with them undoing their mess. 

 

[B-Man]

THEIR ENTIRE PLATFORM IS BUILT ON LIES: 

Amid Booming Economy, Sen. Elizabeth Warren Tells Crowd ‘These Are Hard Times for Our Country.’

 

 

 

Related: In Democrats’ war on Donald Trump, ‘stupid’ economy still stubbornly good.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

A Budget Disaster of Epic Proportions. 

 

It’s been one of those after another since the stimulus was basically made permanent through continuing resolutions. If you look at the spending charts, the Tea Party had an impact for a few years until it was killed by a bipartisan coalition of parasites. I’m sad to admit that I’ve been kind of desensitized to this, because it doesn’t seem like anything can or will be done until there’s a crisis.

 by Glenn Reynolds