(10-10-2013, 06:10 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]http://equilibrium-economicum.net/onedollar.htm
(10-10-2013, 06:23 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Your idea of "capitalism is if you have more money you have more say" is really refreshing. Any reference?
One of the reference is quoted above. The inherent understanding is not new nor did it come from me.
(10-10-2013, 06:31 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, i don't think we are all going to ever agree. Specuvestor and I believe that people are humans first, productive workers second. You believe everyone has to earn the right to survive. There are merits to both arguments.
Actually it can be less altruistic than that... Enlightened self interest means those paying forward knows that it will benefit them as well. A rich man in his castle will not have a very good quality of life when there are slums around him. If everyone prospers, his castle will also be worth more, for one.
Freedom is like some value investors insisting P/B is the most objective measure of value stock. But when we look at the big picture in terms of management incentive, competitive environment, regulatory frameworks, then maybe the conclusion could be very different.
中庸之道... end of the day it has to make sense to incentive people to optimise their potentials, and eveyone will benefit... question of smaller or bigger benefits.
If you really read my posts, I always include both the rich and the middle class. But too many times, you only pick the disabled ones and the rich only.
I fail to understand your points.
If you like to go extreme to prove your point, there is no point for me to agree with you on anything. The rich is outnumbered by the middle class many times.
So don't use the minority to make a point, please.
(11-10-2013, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]It also helps to answer earlier question about whether US government not paying its obligations other than debt is a default. Apparently, it is called government shutdown.
They are using the government shutdown to pressure the politicians who are pressured by the voters that work for the government.
US Treasury default is a perception thing, not being paid your salary is real.
Matter of who blink first and as discussed, seems like Republicans have most to lose.
(11-10-2013, 11:41 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]It also helps to answer earlier question about whether US government not paying its obligations other than debt is a default. Apparently, it is called government shutdown.
They are using the government shutdown to pressure the politicians who are pressured by the voters that work for the government.
US Treasury default is a perception thing, not being paid your salary is real.
Matter of who blink first and as discussed, seems like Republicans have most to lose.
I think the US has the most to lose, especially the future generation.
If the Republicans give in, there is never going to be a day that US budget can be balanced. Is it good for the US?
I always use a simple example in real life to describe it. Would you suggest a person whose spending constantly exceeds his/her income to borrow more to spend even more? I can't imagine a non-disaster scenario in the end.
(11-10-2013, 11:40 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]If you really read my posts, I always include both the rich and the middle class. But too many times, you only pick the disabled ones and the rich only.
I fail to understand your points.
If you like to go extreme to prove your point, there is no point for me to agree with you on anything. The rich is outnumbered by the middle class many times.
So don't use the minority to make a point, please.
We started with budgets, entitlement and obamacare. I use analogy on the disabled but I was always referencing to the "less fortunate". The lucky sperm club has a social obligation to pay forward. Your focus is always on the rich paying more, making transfers, and in so missing the big picture that it means a better life for all, not just for the poor; as long as the programs are done properly. The republicans have already delivered your message clear enough for the rich people.
I would figure most of the forumers here understood my points. I had stated categorically that capitalism is a useful tool for efficiency. But you had said ALL entitlements are wrong. I don't see why I am the more extreme one.
Anyway I've given my best shot in trying to add a bit of big picture to the forum. It is up to the individual to explore more.
(11-10-2013, 11:44 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I think the US has the most to lose, especially the future generation.
If the Republicans give in, there is never going to be a day that US budget can be balanced. Is it good for the US?
I always use a simple example in real life to describe it. Would you suggest a person whose spending constantly exceeds his/her income to borrow more to spend even more? I can't imagine a non-disaster scenario in the end.
Republicans don't have a good track of balancing the budget because they are more focused on foreign than domestic affairs.
If this person prints money that people readily accepts it would be different scenario. It will come to roost one day but that day is very much prolonged. If Japan had spent like US, their US$ foreign reserves would be gone in 2 years.
(11-10-2013, 12:00 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 11:44 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I think the US has the most to lose, especially the future generation.
If the Republicans give in, there is never going to be a day that US budget can be balanced. Is it good for the US?
I always use a simple example in real life to describe it. Would you suggest a person whose spending constantly exceeds his/her income to borrow more to spend even more? I can't imagine a non-disaster scenario in the end.
Republicans don't have a good track of balancing the budget because they are more focused on foreign than domestic affairs.
If this person prints money that people readily accepts it would be different scenario. It will come to roost one day but that day is very much prolonged. If Japan had spent like US, their US$ foreign reserves would be gone in 2 years.
The highlighted one is one of the most populist ideas I have ever read. And you think you are not a populist?
Nothing good will ever come out from the idea you described. The US government knows it, so does the Japanese government. Plus, the US government does not have the right to print money. The US government has the right to print US dollar bills, but it can only sell it to the Fed. Only if the Fed agrees to buy those newly printed US dollar bills by issuing liability of its own, which is the real money commonly accepted by all other banks in US, it is called money then.
(11-10-2013, 12:00 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 11:40 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]If you really read my posts, I always include both the rich and the middle class. But too many times, you only pick the disabled ones and the rich only.
I fail to understand your points.
If you like to go extreme to prove your point, there is no point for me to agree with you on anything. The rich is outnumbered by the middle class many times.
So don't use the minority to make a point, please.
We started with budgets, entitlement and obamacare. I use analogy on the disabled but I was always referencing to the "less fortunate". The lucky sperm club has a social obligation to pay forward. Your focus is always on the rich paying more, making transfers, and in so missing the big picture that it means a better life for all, not just for the poor; as long as the programs are done properly. The republicans have already delivered your message clear enough for the rich people.
I would figure most of the forumers here understood my points. I had stated categorically that capitalism is a useful tool for efficiency. But you had said ALL entitlements are wrong. I don't see why I am the more extreme one.
Anyway I've given my best shot in trying to add a bit of big picture to the forum. It is up to the individual to explore more.
Populist idea is the easiest to understand, otherwise, it would not be called populist. But it is not necessary the right ones.
Please define your "less fortunate". Do you include the 7% unemployed? Do you include the vast who "give up" seek of employment?
Wealth transfer is not only from the rich to the poor. Often, it is also from the middle class to the poor, from the employed to the unemployed.
Quote:But you had said ALL entitlements are wrong. I don't see why I am the more extreme one.
maybe you have forgotten, I correct my above statement already. But you continue to use it.
(11-10-2013, 12:16 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 12:00 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 11:44 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I think the US has the most to lose, especially the future generation.
If the Republicans give in, there is never going to be a day that US budget can be balanced. Is it good for the US?
I always use a simple example in real life to describe it. Would you suggest a person whose spending constantly exceeds his/her income to borrow more to spend even more? I can't imagine a non-disaster scenario in the end.
Republicans don't have a good track of balancing the budget because they are more focused on foreign than domestic affairs.
If this person prints money that people readily accepts it would be different scenario. It will come to roost one day but that day is very much prolonged. If Japan had spent like US, their US$ foreign reserves would be gone in 2 years.
The highlighted one is one of the most populist ideas I have ever read. And you think you are not a populist?
Nothing good will ever come out from the idea you described. The US government knows it, so does the Japanese government. Plus, the US government does not have the right to print money. The US government has the right to print US dollar bills, but it can only sell it to the Fed. Only if the Fed agrees to buy those newly printed US dollar bills by issuing liability of its own, which is the real money commonly accepted by all other banks in US, it is called money then.
This is the fiat system and structure. i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Merely stating a fact that you are callously jumping on.
It is called monetisation. I think my econs understanding is adequate but since we're on it and you seemed keen on nomenclatures, the US government doesn't print money. It issues debt.
(11-10-2013, 12:23 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2013, 12:16 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]The highlighted one is one of the most populist ideas I have ever read. And you think you are not a populist?
Nothing good will ever come out from the idea you described. The US government knows it, so does the Japanese government. Plus, the US government does not have the right to print money. The US government has the right to print US dollar bills, but it can only sell it to the Fed. Only if the Fed agrees to buy those newly printed US dollar bills by issuing liability of its own, which is the real money commonly accepted by all other banks in US, it is called money then.
This is the fiat system and structure. i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Merely stating a fact that you are callously jumping on.
It is called monetisation. I think my econs understanding is adequate but since we're on it and you seemed keen on nomenclatures, the US government doesn't print money. It issues debt.
You are making me laugh too much. If the US government has such power, why would there be a debt ceiling issue? Just print and print, no need debt.
On your debt argument. US debt is not money. US debt is an asset that other people buy with money. But itself is not money.
maybe you need refresh your econ theories. Money is the liabilities of the Fed or the commercial banks. not the US government.
do you want another example? I also can issue my debt to the bank in exchange for money(I issued IOU(my debt) in favor to the bank, the bank pays me the money and I use it to buy a house). Does that mean that I am printing money?
(11-10-2013, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]A better explanation about government shutdown and default from Wikipedia.
Quote:Under US law, an administration can spend only if it has sufficient funds to pay for it. These funds can come either from tax receipts or from borrowing by the United States Department of the Treasury. Congress has set a debt ceiling, beyond which the Treasury cannot borrow (this is similar to a credit limit on a credit card). The debt limit does not restrict Congress’s ability to enact spending and revenue legislation that affects the level of debt or otherwise constrains fiscal policy; it restricts Treasury’s authority to borrow to finance the decisions already enacted by Congress and the President. Congress also usually votes on increasing the debt limit after fiscal policy decisions affecting federal borrowing have begun to take effect.[6] In the absence of sufficient revenue, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would result in the administration being unable to fund all the spending which it is required to do by prior acts of Congress. At that point, the government must cancel or delay some spending, a situation sometimes referred to as a partial government shut down.
It also helps to answer earlier question about whether US government not paying its obligations other than debt is a default. Apparently, it is called government shutdown.
Good day Freedom,
Fair enough, i do not wish to devote any more time to research the legalities and as such am willing to concede the point. So, is this your proposed solution to the US situation? Fail to honour entitlements when they come due and only pay bondholders?
hi guys, been following your arguments in this thread.
in my view, no point discussing so much and spending so much time on something which is beyond anyone's control anyway.
better to source for undervalued buys and spend time more meaningfully doing research during this time.