if thats the crap you choose to believe then go ahead...nothing goes straight up ya know......yes europe is in trouble right now....but the US is in just as much trouble....its just that for the moment it seems to people that the US is not in as much trouble as europe...that will change eventually.....I may not be able to tell you exactly when but the fundamentals point to a collapse in the dollar eventually!
I agree with Bacardi. The USA is completely broke and there is no hope of even drafting a budget let alone a balanced one with the current **** in charge. That being said, the intangible aspect of the USA military has to come into play. I believe that the USA can continue for a while as long as the world fears irrational bombers (i.e. Bush and Obama). The real step change will occur when a proven technique of downing US drones is unveiled or neutralizing the trillions of USA dollars invested in military technology (i.e. spies in Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, etc.) is divulged to China.
yup....the US can only continue so long as the rest of the globe support it.....similar to a person with an underwater mortgage and no job....he can still live there so long as the creditor dont pull the plug!
The largest economy on the planet is doomed because of spending that doesn't even approach WWII levels as percentage of GDP. Only in bizarro ********** world!
another clueless coment The USA in the 1940's was a totally different nation than today...the US was still an exporting nation with huge surpluses, plus the US had huge foreign exchange reserves, add to this the US was still on a gold standard. PS do your homework before you shoot off your mouth
Talk about shooting mouths. The US is the largest economy on the planet today and is in much better fiscal shape than in 1945. What is it with Tea Party apocalytic thinking. It's so silly.
Lets look at some numbers.. Right now US debt is $15.1 trillion (if you include unfunded liabilities it's more like $131 trillion), US total GDP is $15.07 trillion.. So that's at Debt to GDP ratio of 100%. In just 3 years (2015) the numbers based current spending rates and growth rates look like this: Debt: $24 trillion GDP: $17 trillion. That is 134% Debt to GDP ratio. By that time our unfunded liabilities will be over $134 trillion. So we'd have a total debt of $158 trillion. So you know unfunded liabilities include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare D. This is very important to understand as the US demographics are actually worse then 1945. In 1945 a person barely made it to age 80. Most people died before collecting Social Security. Today, people make it to retirement and get Social Security. Which there is nothing wrong with except there are less people paying into Social Security. US needed a population boom in the 70's and 80's that rivaled the Baby Boomer era, but it didn't happen. Birth rates dropped from 3 children per women to 2 children per women. So don't tell me or anybody here we are in better shape then 1945. So don't try to educate people who actually know the numbers.
This is the standard "demographic timebomb" hogwash. You've of course ignored that productivity has been growing faster than longevity
LOL huge trade and budget deficits plus a debt to GDP of over 100%. The US is nowhere near as in a good a shape than in 1945!
High trade deficits are either short term phenomenon or reflect savings imbalances. Your reply is quite random
just like you cannot spend without earning, you also cannot consume without earning from exports.....being the largest economy means nothing if there is no income to support the massive consumption! Econ 101.......you really should read up on it LOL
Why are you continuing your act of randomness? Go back to the original comment and derive a sensible reply
the US no longer manufactures so of course the deficit ballooned. And its structural....not a temporary phenominon as you put it. How can it reverse? What would the US export more of?
You're still continuing your randomness, rather than replying to my comment. Sort it out (especially as your randomness has also introduced complete invalidity as you deliberately ignore that deindustrialisation is a standard result for matue economies and that the deficit reflects a savings imbalance).
I haven't ignored it. Productivity vs Longevity doesn't matter when those programs are paid for by taxes on those employed. It's surprising you don't understand the pressures such as productivity growth isn't always static but elastic. That Baumol Effect can come into play, so can Malthusian world of thought. You know the diminishing returns in certain commodities will increase prices, thus the most basic items will increase in price as well in effect transferring resources to retired will be more costly. Then you just have the fact that there will be resistance to tax increase on the worker.
But his analysis is correct. US savings rates and trade imbalances are growing. It's not a short term phenomenon.
You've made a staggeringly invalid remark, suggesting that you've allowed yourself to be skewed by the soundbite. That's a shame. The rest of your remark was a shallow attempt at hiding from the 'oops'
He hasn't got an analysis. He has a random remark in support (if that is possible) of your invalidity. He can crow about trading imbalances created by savings rates (basic macroeconomics after all), but he tried to come out with nonsensical structural problems based on ignoring positive deindustrialisation
Nor would I but your quote was: So the US economy has "no income"? What in heck are you rambling about now?
Do you deny any of the facts I provide? Can you economically prove such imbalance can take places over the long term but no benefits or wage be subjected to that imbalance? You can't. I know it, you know it and its the reason you work on soundbites over analysis which is typical of the one liner economics that are mainstream today.
