Paul Krugman has brought attention to the idea of the Treasury Secretary having a trillion dollar coin made to bypass the debt ceiling.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/
Investment guru Michael Reese says the fiscal cliff deal is horrible and congress is doing a lousy job.
http://www.retiringwell.tv/show-archives
Here are a couple of Michael Reese's predictions for this year.
1) There will be a government shutdown and the stock market will go down. Expect a correction later in the year of at least 20%
2) You should avoid bonds. Treasury Bonds will be toxic.
Krugman says go deeper in debt and Reese says not to. Who is right?
Originally posted by Metal BrainThis "trillion dollar coin" idea is just a gimmick. Congress won't come to an agreement on much of anything concerning the debt, since the Democrats want to tax the problem away, and the GOP wants to cut the problem away. They'll continue to kick the can down the road in a series of short term solutions. The improving economy will mean more new jobs, and more tax revenue as a result, but don't look for anything to change much regarding our silly government.
Paul Krugman has brought attention to the idea of the Treasury Secretary having a trillion dollar coin made to bypass the debt ceiling.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/
Investment guru Michael Reese says the fiscal cliff deal is horrible and congress is doing a lousy job.
http://www.retiringwell.tv/show-archive ...[text shortened]... ury Bonds will be toxic.
Krugman says go deeper in debt and Reese says not to. Who is right?
Originally posted by bill718Plus nobody would ever be able to make change for it. 😀
This "trillion dollar coin" idea is just a gimmick. Congress won't come to an agreement on much of anything concerning the debt, since the Democrats want to tax the problem away, and the GOP wants to cut the problem away. They'll continue to kick the can down the road in a series of short term solutions. The improving economy will mean more new jobs, and mor ...[text shortened]... nue as a result, but don't look for anything to change much regarding our silly government.
Originally posted by rwingettCould be worse. It could be the Triganic Pu, as described by Douglas Adams:
Plus nobody would ever be able to make change for it. 😀
"The Triganic Pu has its own very special problems. Its exchange rate of eight Ningis to one Pu is simple enough, but since a Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Ningis are not negotiable currency, because the Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change."
Originally posted by Metal BrainKrugman loves debt and government spending. He's so politicized that it's impossible to look at anything he espouses objectively.
Paul Krugman has brought attention to the idea of the Treasury Secretary having a trillion dollar coin made to bypass the debt ceiling.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/
Investment guru Michael Reese says the fiscal cliff deal is horrible and congress is doing a lousy job.
http://www.retiringwell.tv/show-archive ...[text shortened]... ury Bonds will be toxic.
Krugman says go deeper in debt and Reese says not to. Who is right?
I don't think either side can risk an actual government shutdown, although Obama seems to be the one who cares about the consequences a little less.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Congress can pass a law saying "We will purchase X". But then they have to pass another law raising $100 billion which is needed for X. At least that was the case before WWI. Since then, the Congress has run a debt pool with a ceiling instead of raising a bond issue for each separate law. But there is no reason that has to continue. What Congress has done they can undo if they choose.
Krugman loves debt and government spending. He's so politicized that it's impossible to look at anything he espouses objectively.
I don't think either side can risk an actual government shutdown, although Obama seems to be the one who cares about the consequences a little less.
The President must wait to spend money until the Congress authorizes it. So if Congress has put umpteen projects on the President's plate but has not yet voted the funding or authorization to borrow for all of them, then the President cannot do them all. The President must then first pay any outstanding debts, and then defer any additional projects for lack of funds. The President can of course choose what discretionary spending he wants to cut -- but cut he must.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I saw Krugman on Charlie Rose. He says WW2 is what pulled the USA out of the depression so it takes that kind of spending to pull us out of this economic funk. He suggests infrastructure spending instead of war which has to be funded sooner or later anyway.
Krugman loves debt and government spending. He's so politicized that it's impossible to look at anything he espouses objectively.
I don't think either side can risk an actual government shutdown, although Obama seems to be the one who cares about the consequences a little less.
That is his logic. Others say spending cuts are the answer. What do you think?
Originally posted by bill718"This "trillion dollar coin" idea is just a gimmick."
This "trillion dollar coin" idea is just a gimmick. Congress won't come to an agreement on much of anything concerning the debt, since the Democrats want to tax the problem away, and the GOP wants to cut the problem away. They'll continue to kick the can down the road in a series of short term solutions. The improving economy will mean more new jobs, and mor ...[text shortened]... nue as a result, but don't look for anything to change much regarding our silly government.
Zimbabwe actually printed $200,000,000 bills.
http://compare.ebay.com/like/230815269537?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat Krugman ignores is that WWII also killed a hell of a lot of what used to be unemployed workers. There were also a host of new products which came out of the war effort, such as frozen concentrated orange juice.
I saw Krugman on Charlie Rose. He says WW2 is what pulled the USA out of the depression so it takes that kind of spending to pull us out of this economic funk. He suggests infrastructure spending instead of war which has to be funded sooner or later anyway.
That is his logic. Others say spending cuts are the answer. What do you think?
So Krugman would prescribe killing a few million people by creating a war?
Krugman also believes that Katrina, and presumably Sandy benefited the economy, ignoring the simple broken window fallacy of Bastiate.
Originally posted by spruce112358You have the situation backwards. Congress has already authorized the spending.
Congress can pass a law saying "We will purchase X". But then they have to pass another law raising $100 billion which is needed for X. At least that was the case before WWI. Since then, the Congress has run a debt pool with a ceiling instead of raising a bond issue for each separate law. But there is no reason that has to continue. What Congress has do ...[text shortened]... resident can of course choose what discretionary spending he wants to cut -- but cut he must.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYour stupidity is always amazing and amusing.
What Krugman ignores is that WWII also killed a hell of a lot of what used to be unemployed workers. There were also a host of new products which came out of the war effort, such as frozen concentrated orange juice.
So Krugman would prescribe killing a few million people by creating a war?
Krugman also believes that Katrina, and presumably Sandy benefited the economy, ignoring the simple broken window fallacy of Bastiate.
The broken window fallacy doesn't apply when there is less than full employment (a condition that classical economists like Bastiate thought was impossible).
Originally posted by normbenignYou don't have to use forced labour for infrastructure spending.
What Krugman ignores is that WWII also killed a hell of a lot of what used to be unemployed workers. There were also a host of new products which came out of the war effort, such as frozen concentrated orange juice.
So Krugman would prescribe killing a few million people by creating a war?
Krugman also believes that Katrina, and presumably Sandy benefited the economy, ignoring the simple broken window fallacy of Bastiate.
Originally posted by normbenignNo, Krugman does not propose war.
What Krugman ignores is that WWII also killed a hell of a lot of what used to be unemployed workers. There were also a host of new products which came out of the war effort, such as frozen concentrated orange juice.
So Krugman would prescribe killing a few million people by creating a war?
Krugman also believes that Katrina, and presumably Sandy benefited the economy, ignoring the simple broken window fallacy of Bastiate.
He proposes infrastructure spending instead.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignChump change. Zimbabwe eventually topped out at a 100 trillion dollar banknote.
"This "trillion dollar coin" idea is just a gimmick."
Zimbabwe actually printed $200,000,000 bills.
http://compare.ebay.com/like/230815269537?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar
http://thejetpacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Zimbabwe_100_trillion_2009.jpg
Originally posted by no1marauderFull employment is virtually impossible to define, never mind to accomplish. I become more and more pleased when you resort to name calling. You have already lost.
Your stupidity is always amazing and amusing.
The broken window fallacy doesn't apply when there is less than full employment (a condition that classical economists like Bastiate thought was impossible).
Keynes and his disciples haven't yet defined full employment, nor have their policies and theories created it.
Bastiate's wisdom remains head and shoulders above the Tom foolery of a Krugman.