America is not the greatest country in the world

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I guess you think borrowing money for education is irresponsible.

It can be.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i happened to agree actually. the us used to be the greatest country.

it helped win 2 horrific wars, ending them much sooner.
it helped europe rebuild after the second.
it stood up to the ussr (no matter who you preferred in the cold war conflict, it still provided opposition, a different ideology).
it shaped culture

"Shaped culture " Fattest nation on this planet munching hotdogs , burgers
and Mc Donalds .🙄

Originally posted by whodey
So what if Putin is another Hitler? You will be begging the US for help....again.

Yes, you can sit on your backsides and see which way the war is turning before you enter ,again .

Originally posted by phil3000
Yes, you can sit on your backsides and see which way the war is turning before you enter ,again .

Ever heard of the NATO?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I hate threads that just give youtubes. i apologize for starting one.

Following is a scene from the show Newsroom, which i never watched but i am planing to because of this particular scene. it is a summary of what is believed to be wrong with it.

The conclusion is "America is not the greatest country in the world, but it used to be"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c

I think Denmark is the greatest country in the world. 🙂

Originally posted by redbarons
the conservative party at the last election promised to cut public spending and reduce our borrowing they have done the opposite.

That is because their analysis of the reasons for this problem was so disastrously wrong.

A deficit (the ongoing negative balance between income and spending) may arise through increased spending or through reduced income.

The Tories say the deficit is caused by welfare spending. This is false on two levels.

One, because the claims about welfare spending are systematic half truths and lies. The economic crash was worldwide and cannot possibly have been caused by British welfare spending. See this article: [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/welfare-spending-spiralling-out-of-control-wrong ] The outgoing government did release vast sums - which of course added to debt - to prop up the banking system but that is not an ongoing commitment (not a revenue spend) and some proportion of that will be returned, for example through the sale of restructured banks like RBS and Lloyds.

Two, because tax revenues crashed owing to unsupportable and irresponsible PRIVATE debt, not public debt. Insane gambling in the private financial sector around the world, not just in Britain, brought the banking system to its knees. The living standards of working people - including the middle class - were allowed to shrivel as their share of income and wealth reduced (to the benefit of the very rich, the only group to enjoy rising incomes and rising wealth) and people were pushed into unsupportable private debt (credit cards, mortgages, equity release, etc) to compensate for loss of income and to allow then to participate in the gamble that was deregulation. Many people were borrowing to live, not for self indulgence. The system had to fail and it did.

So what do we get under the Tories. More deregulation. More privatisation. More risky financial engineering. More public money handed over to the rich. More wealthy corporations and individuals allowed to evade taxation. Naturally, that is going to mean the government's income is not adequate to meet the needs of the people or the economy.

Welfare spending is not being slashed to balance the budget, because the damage to the economy is greater than the savings and the net result is a loss. Welfare spending is being slashed instead in order to free the rich and the large corporations from social responsibility.

There is no recession for the rich. There is no recession in London and its most affluent suburbs. But it is quite possible that another financial crash is on its way. Because this right wing remedy is killing the patient.

Originally posted by finnegan
That is because their analysis of the reasons for this problem was so disastrously wrong.

A deficit (the ongoing negative balance between income and spending) may arise through increased spending or through reduced income.

.

Obviously you aren't too bright our you are allowing your ideological beliefs blind you to the truth. The truth is that deficit will arise when you spend more money than you have. You can adjust your spending to your supply of money.

If your supply of money decreases, then your spending should decrease. If your supply of money increases, then you are free to increase spending. Spending without regard to supply is the problem.

Originally posted by Eladar
Obviously you aren't too bright our you are allowing your ideological beliefs blind you to the truth. The truth is that deficit will arise when you spend more money than you have. You can adjust your spending to your supply of money.

If your supply of money decreases, then your spending should decrease. If your supply of money increases, then you are free to increase spending. Spending without regard to supply is the problem.

China, has the money (US and UK debt), the military and the population to call itself the most powerful country on earth.

Originally posted by Eladar
Obviously you aren't too bright our you are allowing your ideological beliefs blind you to the truth. The truth is that deficit will arise when you spend more money than you have. You can adjust your spending to your supply of money.

If your supply of money decreases, then your spending should decrease. If your supply of money increases, then you are free to increase spending. Spending without regard to supply is the problem.

Fair enough as far as you go. However, the trick is to reduce spending in a way that does not generate a greater reduction of income.

Say you own a shop. Your income falls a bit so you buy in less stock so you have less to sell so your income falls again so your stock has to fall again so you have less to sell so you close the shop. Sometimes to make money you have to spend some.

You see it all depends on which simple, homely example you choose. Economics is harder than that and not all homely simple examples are actually valid.

In this economic crisis, what crashed was government income and also indeed corporate income. The economy stalled. In the absence of customers, nobody wants to invest (eg buy more stock to sell) and instead frightened corporations and frightened governments are determined to pay off debt and save their cash. So what is required is not to close up economic activity but to energize it again and get the stuff circulating to everyone's benefit. Taking money out of the economy is causing more of the problem and not solving it.

Originally posted by bill718
I think Denmark is the greatest country in the world. 🙂

Try to get an immigration visa. It is small. Not to be compared to nations the size of the US, Russia and China.

Originally posted by finnegan
Fair enough as far as you go. However, the trick is to reduce spending in a way that does not generate a greater reduction of income.

Say you own a shop. Your income falls a bit so you buy in less stock so you have less to sell so your income falls again so your stock has to fall again so you have less to sell so you close the shop. Sometimes to make mo ...[text shortened]... ne's benefit. Taking money out of the economy is causing more of the problem and not solving it.

Pumping money into the economy creates the dependency of both business and labor. It doesn't matter if you are a multibillion dollar corporation, or a 20k a year laborer, if you are borrowing to support your spending habits a fall is eventually in your future.

Originally posted by normbenign
Pumping money into the economy creates the dependency of both business and labor. It doesn't matter if you are a multibillion dollar corporation, or a 20k a year laborer, if you are borrowing to support your spending habits a fall is eventually in your future.

so in a nutshell the west is bankrupt

Originally posted by normbenign
Pumping money into the economy creates the dependency of both business and labor. It doesn't matter if you are a multibillion dollar corporation, or a 20k a year laborer, if you are borrowing to support your spending habits a fall is eventually in your future.

Yes well much depends on which part of the economy you pump your money into.

The economy is not suffering from a lack of cash to invest - the corporations are stuffed with excess cash. The problem has been the loss of customers. Until private debt is resolved and the incomes of ordinary people (millions and millions of them) are restored to something like the previous values then the situations will not improve.

Put it simply. It was wrong to rescue the banks. The money should have gone to the pockets of people in debt, enabled them to reduce personal debt and enabled them to start spending again. But that would have meant customers paying back the banks and the banks prefer to have debt as that is their asset base.

Originally posted by redbarons
so in a nutshell the west is bankrupt

In a nutshell, the west, and the east are bankrupt.

The usual cause of recessions are that in exuberance producers have overstocked sellers. The cure is eventually the overstock is reduced producers go back to work, and another cycle is started. Sometimes prices and wages must be reduced to accomplish this goal quickly. Just giving people money to spend is unlikely to be targeted enough.

Almost all the governments on the planet are engaging in some level of deficit spending.