fixing

keepit wrote:
You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much.
You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending. That would shrink the economy too much.
Pickle, you say.

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

keepit wrote:
You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much.

keepit wrote:
You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending.

keepit wrote:
That would shrink the economy too much.

keepit wrote:
Pickle, you say.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
You can't fix the economy by raising taxes. That would shrink the economy too much.
You can't fix the economy by shrinking govt spending. That would shrink the economy too much.
Pickle, you say.

Some taxes like the corporate tax rate need to be raised.

James___ wrote:
One problem is if people use credit to buy a $1,000.00 phone, most of that money goes to China.

James___ wrote:
The US trade deficit exports about $800 Billion a year from the US economy.

James___ wrote:
If personal and private new loans each year equal $800 Billion, then the economy will remain flat.

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.

keepit wrote:
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems.

keepit wrote:
Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds.

keepit wrote:
I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

So, you're okay with America writing a bad check, to pay off their credit card debt. What happened when you paid with 'rubber' checks? You still ended up paying your debt, after being a guest of the state, for a few years. I don't know how those bonds work, but generally, if you buy something, you have a choice about selling them. China could just hold onto those bonds, since the are as worthless as the fresh printed dollars, offered to pay for them.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

So, you're okay with America writing a bad check, to pay off their credit card debt. What happened when you paid with 'rubber' checks? You still ended up paying your debt, after being a guest of the state, for a few years. I don't know how those bonds work, but generally, if you buy something, you have a choice about selling them. China could just hold onto those bonds, since the are as worthless as the fresh printed dollars, offered to pay for them.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

So, you're okay with America writing a bad check, to pay off their credit card debt. What happened when you paid with 'rubber' checks? You still ended up paying your debt, after being a guest of the state, for a few years. I don't know how those bonds work, but generally, if you buy something, you have a choice about selling them. China could just hold onto those bonds, since the are as worthless as the fresh printed dollars, offered to pay for them.

Trump's booming economy which you supported was based on $Trillion deficits. All I stated were facts. I offered no opinion.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

So, you're okay with America writing a bad check, to pay off their credit card debt. What happened when you paid with 'rubber' checks? You still ended up paying your debt, after being a guest of the state, for a few years. I don't know how those bonds work, but generally, if you buy something, you have a choice about selling them. China could just hold onto those bonds, since the are as worthless as the fresh printed dollars, offered to pay for them.

Trump's booming economy which you supported was based on $Trillion deficits. All I stated were facts. I offered no opinion.

Nope. It is based on capitalism.

Deficits is a government problem. Government is not the economy.

James___ wrote:
This link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-01-25/the-world-is-dangerously-dependent-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors is about how Taiwan controls a lot of the chip manufacturing capacity.
They also talk about how various countries are trying to work with a couple of Taiwanese companies to increase the manufacturing outside of Taiwan.
With a part of the US trade deficit, foreign companies ship parts to another country which eventually allows for final assembly in the US. This ties their export with American manufacturing jobs.
For such companies, they also receive tax breaks where they locate their companies. When economies become intertwined this way, should deficit spending be allowed to be a part of the solution?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Debit is a dirty word, and should be avoided... There should rarely be deficit spend, only in emergencies, and quickly corrected. Democrats don't get rich, and stay rich, by spending their own money. They prefer to talk other people into investing in their little get-rich schemes. They take a share of the profits, for setting it up, but take no responsibility for losses or failures. Bank loans, are other peoples money, which they can default on, or re-negotiate the turns, never, ever actually repaying. Generally, they eventually find somebody to dump there debt off on, as part of a business sale. They think the government finances should work the same way, not to mention it's a good place to get other people's money to spend, or dump their debts. That's just the 'legal' ways to get rich. Then there is the Hunter Biden types, who sell favors, for a cut in the foreign aid packages. Democrats seem to think everyday should be a party, since somebody else will pick up the tab. Responsible adults, live within their means, and try to avoid taking on any more debt, than they can reasonable afford to repay, in a reasonable number of years, based on their income.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
I've heard about the trade deficit for 50 years and that it was going to tank the economy.
As far as i know there was only one time (maybe it was only for a month) that trade "deficit" was a positive number. I've never heard an explanation of how it has gone on for so long without causing problems. Maybe the problem is that we borrow that money back from the world and owe it in bonds. I'd like to see us print some money and pay off those bonds and quit paying interest on it.

So, you're okay with America writing a bad check, to pay off their credit card debt. What happened when you paid with 'rubber' checks? You still ended up paying your debt, after being a guest of the state, for a few years. I don't know how those bonds work, but generally, if you buy something, you have a choice about selling them. China could just hold onto those bonds, since the are as worthless as the fresh printed dollars, offered to pay for them.

Trump's booming economy which you supported was based on $Trillion deficits. All I stated were facts. I offered no opinion.

Nope. It is based on capitalism.

Deficits is a government problem. Government is not the economy.

One possible solution is to allow governments an amount of deficit spending as a % of GDP. This spending could be used for maintaining infrastructure. Exporting capital will always lead to a contraction of an economy unless countermeasures are allowed for.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:
This link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-01-25/the-world-is-dangerously-dependent-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors is about how Taiwan controls a lot of the chip manufacturing capacity.
They also talk about how various countries are trying to work with a couple of Taiwanese companies to increase the manufacturing outside of Taiwan.
With a part of the US trade deficit, foreign companies ship parts to another country which eventually allows for final assembly in the US. This ties their export with American manufacturing jobs.
For such companies, they also receive tax breaks where they locate their companies. When economies become intertwined this way, should deficit spending be allowed to be a part of the solution?

You are asking the wrong question.

The correct question is "What US State or States will declare themselves an independent "Taiwan" of the socialist US which still declares it/them (a) US province(s)?

.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Debit is a dirty word, and should be avoided... There should rarely be deficit spend, only in emergencies, and quickly corrected. Democrats don't get rich, and stay rich, by spending their own money. They prefer to talk other people into investing in their little get-rich schemes. They take a share of the profits, for setting it up, but take no responsibility for losses or failures. Bank loans, are other peoples money, which they can default on, or re-negotiate the turns, never, ever actually repaying. Generally, they eventually find somebody to dump there debt off on, as part of a business sale. They think the government finances should work the same way, not to mention it's a good place to get other people's money to spend, or dump their debts. That's just the 'legal' ways to get rich. Then there is the Hunter Biden types, who sell favors, for a cut in the foreign aid packages. Democrats seem to think everyday should be a party, since somebody else will pick up the tab. Responsible adults, live within their means, and try to avoid taking on any more debt, than they can reasonable afford to repay, in a reasonable number of years, based on their income.

If you look at 1960 and today, it shows where deficit spending allows for technology in people's lives that otherwise they couldn't afford. A part of this situation is that deficit spending might actually be supporting communist countries.
It has been shown that communism does not allow for innovation or a better life. At the same time, while communism is associated with socialism, socialism is also associated with capitalism.
The US has some things that will affect its economy. Namely its infrastructure. This has anything to do with waste management systems, potable water to bridges and the electrical grid. All those things cost money to maintain let alone improve.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Debit is a dirty word, and should be avoided... There should rarely be deficit spend, only in emergencies, and quickly corrected. Democrats don't get rich, and stay rich, by spending their own money. They prefer to talk other people into investing in their little get-rich schemes. They take a share of the profits, for setting it up, but take no responsibility for losses or failures. Bank loans, are other peoples money, which they can default on, or re-negotiate the turns, never, ever actually repaying. Generally, they eventually find somebody to dump there debt off on, as part of a business sale. They think the government finances should work the same way, not to mention it's a good place to get other people's money to spend, or dump their debts. That's just the 'legal' ways to get rich. Then there is the Hunter Biden types, who sell favors, for a cut in the foreign aid packages. Democrats seem to think everyday should be a party, since somebody else will pick up the tab. Responsible adults, live within their means, and try to avoid taking on any more debt, than they can reasonable afford to repay, in a reasonable number of years, based on their income.

If you look at 1960 and today, it shows where deficit spending allows for technology in people's lives that otherwise they couldn't afford. A part of this situation is that deficit spending might actually be supporting communist countries.
It has been shown that communism does not allow for innovation or a better life. At the same time, while communism is associated with socialism, socialism is also associated with capitalism.
The US has some things that will affect its economy. Namely its infrastructure. This has anything to do with waste management systems, potable water to bridges and the electrical grid. All those things cost money to maintain let alone improve.

There would be a lot less deficit spending, if the US quit handing out freebies, both domestic, and abroad. Smaller government. Too many people doing nothing, playing games, or trying to figure out ways to give away money, we don't have.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Debit is a dirty word, and should be avoided... There should rarely be deficit spend, only in emergencies, and quickly corrected. Democrats don't get rich, and stay rich, by spending their own money. They prefer to talk other people into investing in their little get-rich schemes. They take a share of the profits, for setting it up, but take no responsibility for losses or failures. Bank loans, are other peoples money, which they can default on, or re-negotiate the turns, never, ever actually repaying. Generally, they eventually find somebody to dump there debt off on, as part of a business sale. They think the government finances should work the same way, not to mention it's a good place to get other people's money to spend, or dump their debts. That's just the 'legal' ways to get rich. Then there is the Hunter Biden types, who sell favors, for a cut in the foreign aid packages. Democrats seem to think everyday should be a party, since somebody else will pick up the tab. Responsible adults, live within their means, and try to avoid taking on any more debt, than they can reasonable afford to repay, in a reasonable number of years, based on their income.

If you look at 1960 and today, it shows where deficit spending allows for technology in people's lives that otherwise they couldn't afford. A part of this situation is that deficit spending might actually be supporting communist countries.
It has been shown that communism does not allow for innovation or a better life. At the same time, while communism is associated with socialism, socialism is also associated with capitalism.
The US has some things that will affect its economy. Namely its infrastructure. This has anything to do with waste management systems, potable water to bridges and the electrical grid. All those things cost money to maintain let alone improve.

There would be a lot less deficit spending, if the US quit handing out freebies, both domestic, and abroad. Smaller government. Too many people doing nothing, playing games, or trying to figure out ways to give away money, we don't have.

Bingo. The government is spending too much. The solution is to reduce spending. A lot. Dramatically.

Of course, that's not going to happen now with the SOA.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Debit is a dirty word, and should be avoided... There should rarely be deficit spend, only in emergencies, and quickly corrected. Democrats don't get rich, and stay rich, by spending their own money. They prefer to talk other people into investing in their little get-rich schemes. They take a share of the profits, for setting it up, but take no responsibility for losses or failures. Bank loans, are other peoples money, which they can default on, or re-negotiate the turns, never, ever actually repaying. Generally, they eventually find somebody to dump there debt off on, as part of a business sale. They think the government finances should work the same way, not to mention it's a good place to get other people's money to spend, or dump their debts. That's just the 'legal' ways to get rich. Then there is the Hunter Biden types, who sell favors, for a cut in the foreign aid packages. Democrats seem to think everyday should be a party, since somebody else will pick up the tab. Responsible adults, live within their means, and try to avoid taking on any more debt, than they can reasonable afford to repay, in a reasonable number of years, based on their income.

If you look at 1960 and today, it shows where deficit spending allows for technology in people's lives that otherwise they couldn't afford. A part of this situation is that deficit spending might actually be supporting communist countries.
It has been shown that communism does not allow for innovation or a better life. At the same time, while communism is associated with socialism, socialism is also associated with capitalism.
The US has some things that will affect its economy. Namely its infrastructure. This has anything to do with waste management systems, potable water to bridges and the electrical grid. All those things cost money to maintain let alone improve.

There would be a lot less deficit spending, if the US quit handing out freebies, both domestic, and abroad. Smaller government. Too many people doing nothing, playing games, or trying to figure out ways to give away money, we don't have.

Bingo. The government is spending too much. The solution is to reduce spending. A lot. Dramatically.

Of course, that's not going to happen now with the SOA.

As Harvey would say, it was over 4,000 American idiots who died in Iraq. Bush sent them there while increasing government spending. And as Harvey states, smart people like him don't join the military.
I think a smaller government starts with not starting a war for no reason and causing many casualties. There's about 32,000 wounded in action. Yet many wounded will probably have life long disabilities. Oops, more government spending.
Why are Republicans blameless? I get it. The War in Iraq covered up a significant increase in the trade deficit which benefited Republicans. That was a very clever strategy. Start a war to distract people from what's happening in the US.
Gosh, those Republicans sure are smart, just like Harvey.

keepit wrote:
Like the govt, let's all spend less and therefore create less co2.

keepit wrote:... and the CO2 slows down the release of the sun's energy back into outer space.

keepit wrote: You had to work pretty hard to misunderstand that thoroughly.

keepit wrote:
You're confused IBD.

keepit wrote:You're confused IBD.

keepit wrote: I think you're deliberately confusing yourself.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
CO2 doesn't warm the earth, the sun warms the earth, and the CO2 slows down the release of the sun's energy back into outer space.

keepit wrote:
You're confused IBD.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
You're confused IBD.

I think this post of his relative to ITN says it all, it's about having "faith".

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-fastest-way-to-solve-climate-change-problem-is-making-plant-trees-become-a-competitive-sport-d6-e3499.php#post_67573