Craig Read Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Deficits mean little if the economy is growing and revenues are rising. The US will be in balance next year IF they cut their spending on non essential programs ie non military programs and special interest group programs. This is the problem. As well deficits have 0 correlation with jobs. Don't forget a little thing called the War on Terror is going on, with Canada contributing - gasp - a whopping $276 mn towards Iraqi reconstruction. The US has only just given $20 billion. Thanks Canada for the huge contribution to restoring Western security. Gosh you are so good. The US Deficit is mostly due to the war on terror and partly due to the recent economic slowdown. Sorry that facts intrude on your reality. And how about Canada.....2 % growth this year vs. 4 % in the US, higher unemployment, higher taxes, deficits in Ontario, over taxation in Ottawa.....no military....free riding drug polices....but the CBC will tell you that you are perfect little creatures with your pathetic annual wage of C$55 K per year 40 % of which is ripped out of your hands. Before you criticise the US reform your own little world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Alright, for argument sake I will explore deficits and 0 correlation with jobs Argument 1 – exports and imports Postulated by some mostly left groups that jobs are created when we export goods and services therefore jobs are lost when we import. The deficit is created when the balance is not equitable, and a bigger deficit is created when there is bigger trade imbalance and much more job loss in the case of imports Aurgument 2 - Your argument If the deficit were 0 (“since it means little”) and there is growth or growth remains unchanged, calculation of unemployment can be determine. It means domestic more production of goods – translate more jobs because no more imports or exports and imports equal and of no consequence. Reality now: there is huge trading deficit – and bush isn’t the only one talking those pegging, the entire euro region is concerned But I like the when issues are swept up by counter arguments. take into consideration: - foreign investment is bonds, stocks yes and the net surplus resultant of the investment will lead to buying new machines etc. hence jobs -I wanted to ask how much of the current growth is attributed to imports and would’nt the growth displace the domestic outputs. Well maybe not, because looking back when the manufacturing sector was doing well unemployment fell from approx. 6 to 4 % Reality now: declining into double digits is manufacturing and so is jobs deficits problem is not always due to economic problems well i am always concerned about the US economy and rightfully so because of the cause and effect relationship canada have with the US canada joblessness climb to 8%, and no fixes in sight, all the jobs i see is menial low level opportunity that is contract and part-time, i see more folks heading in to training and upgrading from whencefore the requirment for a walmart greeter might be a degree in communications soon the taxes are set to ruin your livelyhood - nowdays i try to aim at only so high. the folks are worst than caesar, i tried to reduce my house tax - which by the way the good government folks eventually fed-up did by 70% then the bank took an interest, now based on a neighbourhood where no hot-dog stand are allowed i am reappraised - you loose everytime i don't wish to reform anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 I thought we were talking about domestic budget deficits. Trade deficits/surpluses are a completely different animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 well i don't see how you can talk about budget deficits unless you mention trade. large budget deficits run trade deficits in order to maintain certain consumption without reducing domestic investment. trade deficits by themself is not a issue but contribute to other problems as large budget deficits. i found some material that shows how trade influences budget deficits that i haphazardly agree with http://data.vatt.fi/iipf2002/members/paper..._SaadiSedik.pdf but just in case you didn't feel like reading theories here the conclusion CONCLUSIONTheoretically and empirically, the effects of trade openness on budget balance via the instability of government revenue is quite clear: trade openness increases a country's exposure to external shocks (regardless if this is due to natural openness or to trade policy) that in turn enforces the negative impacts of the instability of terms of trade on the budget balance. Additionally, trade openness affects the budget balance through others channels. In this case, the additional effects on the budget position of natural openness and trade policy are opposed. Trade policy enhances budget surpluses. And on the contrary, natural openness deteriorates budget surpluses. Governments are often resistant to liberalize their trade regimes. One argument often invoked is that the budget situation is already difficult in developing countries, and a liberalization program will lead to larger budget deficits. We show in this study that even if trade openness increases a country's exposure to external shocks, and then deteriorates its budget balance, an outward looking strategy enhances its budget balance. To reduce the negative effects of trade openness on budget balance, a country should design sound budget institutions and efficient fiscal administrations. The latter could reduce the effects of Dutch Disease and prevent public spending from political pressures. In this case, optimal fiscal policies could hold as approximations. An outward looking strategy exerts a disciplining influence on political decision-makers to improve macroeconomic policies, it is also source of greater competitiveness, especially by insulating these decision-makers from the pressure of particular interest groups. In addition, an outward looking strategy could be a source of sound budget system and more efficient fiscal administrations, by reducing corruption. Even if an outward looking strategy increases a country’s exposure to external shocks, thus in the short term, has a negative effect on budget balance. In the long term, by reducing corruption, an outward looking strategy could improve the budget balance as a source of higher rate of growth. of course some folks will always disagree that bugets and trade deficits are separate issues but there are always room for controversies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Trade practices do influence our economy, however those effects are mostly neglagent considering the level of impact domestic spending and taxation have on the budget. Besides, a moderate budget deficit is really no big deal anyway. History has never shown a correlation between deficits and inflation or rising interest rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 That is true, in times of war deficits can reach 40 % of GDP. This impairs the nation state [ie. Britain post WW2], but if the right policies are enacted after war, the country can rebound [ie. Britain pursued socialism and spent 30 miserable years]. Current budget deficit in the US is 3 % and they are fighting a war. Canada of course spends approximately 57 cents on the military so wars and such do not concern the pacificts here. Once Iraq is settled down, and the economy expands the US will be in budget surplus IF they cut unnecessary spending. Trade deficits are totally different and by themselves are not necessarily negative. The US is simply the largest market and imports everything from everybody. Since the U$ is the reserve currency of the world, running trade deficits means little. Japan, China and the EU still buy US bonds and TBills thereby granting the US access to Trillions of US dollars [China has sent $400 Billion recently in defending the Yuan]. The most important issues: 1. Productivity 2. GDP growth 3. FDI 4. Currency speculations 5. Interest rate spreads between countries 6. Commodity prices On these 4 issues the US is doing well on 1-3. On #4 traders are betting on a Yuan revaluation. On #5 /#6 Canada is reaping benefits and this is why the C$ will artificially inflate until about mid 2004. By 2006 it will be at 60 cents again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 History has never shown a correlation between deficits and inflation deficits are fiscal, inflation is a monetary phenomenon, now you wish to find an argument that would suffice the impact of relationship on the way the fiscal debt affect inflation according to these thoughts: monetary, fiscal don’t know you will have to work it out maybe with prices decide whether the money demand equation vs the government budget constrain will find answers would make a very interesting inquiry big budget deficit = inflation increase it must be truly a conspiracy that wars are good for the economy. well you need all that demanded resources to go to war, it should encourage growth non Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Let's get down to the real economic issues: Where are the job creations from these enormous tax cuts? Nearly 3 million jobs lost since this moron took office and then wages an expensive war and acts as if we're going to get a lot of financial help from the U.N. countries he insulted before the war and then on top of that..........wants to give $10 billion away in lieu of lending it... Bush is this country's biggest threat... Jobs? Iraq War? Halliburton being the only bidder? Give our money away to an oil rich Iraq? Tax cuts for the wealthy so that they can turn around and write a check right back to Bush's campaign from those cuts?? WMD? Iminent Threat? North Korea says they have Nukes and would use them on us, yet we invade a country who says they don't have them? Divider, not Uniter contrary to what was said during his campaign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Well, I don't know about all that nonsense. Those are some really good liberal slogans though. But there is a buck to be made if you can get your hands on Chinese Yaun before it begins to float. Thats estimated to happen anytime between now and 2006, when the PRC adopts WTO rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Where are the job creations from these enormous tax cuts?Nearly 3 million jobs lost since this moron took office and then wages an expensive war and acts as if we're going to get a lot of financial help from the U.N. countries he insulted before the war and then on top of that..........wants to give $10 billion away in lieu of lending it... Bush, I'm off for a few days. However, when I take off again would it help you if I documented the EXACT PLACES THAT WERE HIREING for more than $12 an hour to unskilled people? Would that change your view any on job shortages? Let me know and I will. I won't bother if it you won't consider any of it though but will want to know why you don't want to hear the situation from the ground where the average American is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 KK, I'm looking at the numbers and if you come back with a reliable source, i.e., link, with job growth, not taking another job in the name of lowering unemployment figures, then yes. Losing a mfg. job and becoming a waiter at a new hotel in town is not my view of equality in the job market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 Bushmustgo, Here's an AP article re: increased consumer confidence, stronger stock market numbers, and upbeat labour market/manufacturing news: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...i_ge/economy_20 Consumer Confidence Rebounds in October By Seth Sutel, AP Business Writer, Oct.28/03 Signs of improvement in the job market triggered a rebound in a measure of consumers' confidence in the economy in October, a private research group reported Tuesday. Lynn Franco, director of the board's consumer research center, said that an improving job market was a "major factor" in the rebound, as was growing hope that employment trends would continue to improve. The data was released the same day that the Commerce Department delivered another dose of good news for the economy with a report showing that new orders for durable goods rebounded in September. The positive economic news helped send stocks higher on Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 48.52 points to 9,656.68 in morning trading. The Conference Board reported that an indicator measuring consumers' appraisal of current economic conditions rose in October following five consecutive months of declines. That measure, the Present Situations index, jumped to 66.8 from 59.7 last month. Consumers' short-term outlook also improved. Those expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months rose to 23.2 percent from 21.3 percent, and slightly fewer respondents expected conditions to worsen. The outlook on job conditions also improved. Those expecting jobs to become available in the next six months increased to 19.7 percent from 16.6 percent. Economists keep a careful watch on indicators of consumer confidence since spending by consumers makes up approximately two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 KK,I'm looking at the numbers and if you come back with a reliable source, i.e., link, with job growth, not taking another job in the name of lowering unemployment figures, then yes. Losing a mfg. job and becoming a waiter at a new hotel in town is not my view of equality in the job market. I am not an economist. I travel as a truck driver throughout the United States. They cannot find enough people to haul the goods that are manufactured, they cannot find enough workers to fill factory positions, they cannot find enough people to pour concrete and carryout the masive reconstruction that is occuring at an amazing rate to the highways and transport infastructure of America. These are not chump change jobs either. Factory workers in most places start at $12 - $18 US an hour as does the transport and road sufacing crews. I know myself and my American counterparts are well over the $150,000 a year range and the people that I haul freight for are on my back to buy a third truck in order to move more of their stuff. Incidently, I haul mostly goods from Canada to the US for US owned factories to their American parent warehouses. Somebody has to be buying this stuff as they seem to have no work shortages, only labor shortages. If there is a job shortage on paper maybe you should come down to where the work is happening and tell them because they havn't heard that they are supposed to lay themselves off yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 hello bushmustgo most folks in their career lifespan and even truer for recent job trends experience 3-5 careers/career change whereas jobs are hardly permanent, contract, part-time, on call, shift, between jobs nowdays the people really who i see would experience the most difficult time returning to work is the older workers - over 45. this is because the older worker is less likely to finish high school, and is competing with an educated younger generation for jobs making the older people displaced. usually we see a high peak of want to return to work, depress of not finding work, weaning off or dropping off of these folks looking for work, or perhaps a small percentage did find work, the others just take early retirement. retraining is a solution to a manufacturing person displaced worker, and can very well wind up in the hotel business. we already know these jobs are disappearing. the government has a social responsibility and should answer to the unemployment problems some creative programs that came out of the system so far: - job creation such as jobs ontario an employer driven program that encourages employers to expand business while the government pick up the tab on wages - bridging programs that allow people to work in their skilled field such as the nurses, engineers - work sharing alternative allows companies to keep the employees working instead of laying off - the goverment share the expense of wages this is still an employers market, meaning that the market is saturated with workers to choose from but we have seen a rise in jobs posted over the past months to about 40-60 new jobs per day jobbank- on the government website campusworklink for student charityvillage for non-profit professional associations such as: ceo.on.ca, ospe.on.ca, hrpao.org, ipma-us.org and others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 i should mention that participation of work sharing has increased because of 9-11 in sector of finances, in the hospitality industry because of SARS, in the manufacturing sector because of the US slowdown and is seen mostly in the plastic industries, car, furniture, clothing, mad-cow this amount 9M was surprising to Lakeside Packers http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/common/news/ins...ur/030613.shtml but a very smart alternative to laying off workers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 Well the Dumbo's better hope that the economy tanks or they have 0 chance in 2004. For those who doubt supply side economics, how to explain the 7.2 % GDP growth in Q3 ??? FASTEST growth in 20 years. Oh but i get it, the Lie-berals and Cdn politicians believe that tax increases and spend spend spend will achieve economic growth not tax cuts. To coin Churchill - taxing one's way to prosperity is akin to man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself by the handle. US Economy Latest Data Period Latest Prev. • Consumer Confidence Oct.* 81.1 77.0 • Retail sales Sept* -0.2% 1.2% • GDP Q2 3.3% 1.4% • ISM Index Sept 53.7 54.7 • Factory Orders Aug* -0.8% 2.0% • Unemployment Rate Sept 6.1% 6.1% • Employment situation Sept* 57,000 -41,000 • Consumer inflation Sept 1.2% 1.3% • Housing starts Sept* 1,888,000 1,826,000 • Home sales Sept* 7,835,000 7,607,000 Especially encouraging was the 15.4 percent growth rate in spending by businesses on equipment and software in the third quarter. That marked the largest increase since the first quarter of 2000 and was up from a 8.3 percent growth rate in the second quarter. Sustained turnarounds in capital spending and in hiring are crucial to the economy’s return to full throttle. Economists said business wants profits to improve and wants to be sure of the recovery’s vigor before it goes on a spending and hiring spree. The US economy is ROARING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 New numbers for third quarter are in: unbelievable! GDP growth jumps to 7.2% in Q3, fastest in nearly 20 years. All the info is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html Read em and weep Dems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Well Dean would like to repeal the supply side taxes that have stimulate the stock market [grey hairs and middle class have been beneficiaries from this], job creationism [150k per month], and business investment and capital formation. The Dems WANT a damaged economy to ensure that a poorer America would welcome the even poorer policies of Mr. Dean and co. Bush has to reform his int'l economics and trade strategy however and reduce spending. This medicare 'reform' ie. more entitlement spend, is not smart economics but pure politics. Same with China bashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 The revised gross domestic product (GDP), released by the Commerce Department Tuesday, was a full percentage point higher than the 7.2 percent growth rate estimated a month ago. That's right folk's it's 8.2% now... Third-Quarter GDP Revised Full Point Upward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 Yes right, but remember - tax cuts are bad !! they don't work !!! the poor, the old, the suffering, oh my, tears well up, hearts are broken, the world will end!!! High taxes, more gov't control, more regulations and more monopolies will make us all wealthier. The Commerce Department reported that profits at American companies rose 30% in the third quarter, compared with a year earlier. That was the largest year-over-year growth in profits in 19 years and was enough to lift the annual pace of profits above $1 trillion for the first time in history. We don't need competition and innovation, that is so 18th century. What Bushie must do is CUT spending drastically, remove tariff barriers and stop bashing China. The Medicaid bill is an outrage of greater spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 Another peice of goody to come through news wires: Durable-Goods Orders Up Sharply What Bushie must do is CUT spending drastically, remove tariff barriers and stop bashing China. Cut spending: definately yes Tarriff barriers, I believe, are only a temporary measure, in the domestic steel industry anyway. Bush is buying for time to allow these operations to moderize so they can compete with subsidized European steel companies. China: of course China represents one of the biggest consumer markets in the world, but the communist nation is potentially very dangerous as it is moderizing at an exponential rate. While it is vital to get China to open up their markets to American goods, it's also very important to keep them in a box. While maybe not on the par of Kim Jung il, China's leadership, especially among military ranks, is extremely beligerent. Double digit increases in military expenditures over the past 10 years sends a clear message that China plans to directly challenge the US, probably in the next 5 to 15 years, most likely over Taiwan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 China offers no threat to the US. The higher its purchasing power the more it will import. It needs a stable currency and open market access to achieve this. Militarily i don't buy into the China is the US' enemy theme. This is fear mongering. East Asia is a split hegemony between the US, Japan and China. China is desperately poor overall, and militarily looks impressive on paper but compared to US technology and firepower is not a major threat. We need China's markets and its capability to produce low cost low value added products. This benefits our consumers and forces competitive restructuring. There is no business case nor moral case for tariffs - unless of course you believe that higher costs for consumers, discrimation against poor countries and hand outs ie protectionist favors for firms with political contacts is moral. Read Bhagwati - best economist and rather more lucid than the poster girl for Liberal jingoists and trade haters - Paul Krugman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I ask that you reevaluate your benevolent view of China. Clearly, China's military would pose little threat to the US if a confrontation occured to today. However, China is closing that gap at a frightening pace and this should not be underestimated. Stolen technology from US corporations and national labs in conjunction with high voume technology transfers from Russia have allowed China to make great strides in areas such as anti-satelite laser systems, airial refueling, ballistic missle guidance, anti-ship missle technology (Russian Sunburn), submarine warefare, nanotechnology, sensor jaming, and miniturization of nuclear weapons among other things. It should be understood that while you may not view China as hostile entity, virtualy every military, poltical, and economical move in China is made within the context of a forward thinking strategy specifically designed to challenge and degrade American dominance, first regionally, then globally. If your interested in gaining another perspective on China, the obvious starting place is "The China Threat" written by Washinton Times national security reporter Bill Gertz. Its a sobering read as his conclusions are supported with declassifed intellegence and other government documents, including PLA white papers obtained from Chinese sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 China is no enemy of the US. It is still a poor third world country with 2 parts - a progressive coastal area + Hong Kong - and the rest. US and Chinese interests have little to clash over in East Asia - plus the US has Japan, Taiwan, Australia and probably a reluctant Russia as allies. Bashing China on trade, erecting tariffs, stimulating trade sanctions and causing trade disruption is not smart politics nor economics. California exported billions to China this year and closing off that market to Cali exports is the last thing that economy needs. The faster China becomes integrated with liberal trading systems in the world order, the faster we will witness a political transformation. As well Chinese products aid the US and Cdn economies - allowing us to shop at Walmart, save our money and reinvest it elsewhere. Trade is benevolent, sanctions malignant. I am convinced that far from being an enemy, China will become a trade and political ally of the US - IF it is handled properly. Currently Bush is botching it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 It is still a poor third world country with 2 parts - a progressive coastal area + Hong Kong - and the rest. Yes, China is relatively poor compared to the US, who isn't? However, fifty years down the line, the Chinese economy will be on par with that of the US but unlike us, China most certainly has intentions of establishing world dominion. plus the US has Japan, Taiwan, Australia and probably a reluctant Russia as allies. Japan, Taiwan, Australia certainly, but Russia NO! Chinese-Russian Alliance Bashing China on trade, erecting tariffs, stimulating trade sanctions and causing trade disruption is not smart politics nor economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.