USA Debt Crisis

We are all poorer...Let's all praise our inflationist overlords.

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/uk-economy/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158870538

"As well as further eroding our spending power, such a rise would also mean savers are virtually guaranteed to see their money lose value in real terms - even the current most lucrative fixed-rate savings accounts pay well below 5%, although there are a couple of inflation-linked accounts available."
 
Any guesses as to why Warren Buffet is now a Government shill? :LOL:

http://warrenbuffettreport.com/2009/04/07/warren-buffett-no5-on-us-bailout-list/

"According to the Houston Chronicle, Berkshire is at least twice as dependent on bailed-out banks as any other large investor."


http://www.businessinsider.com/warr...i-would-be-eating-dinner-at-mcdonalds-2010-11


"If the government hadn't acted, I would be eating Thanksgiving dinner at McDonald's."



Buffett's right on taxes but wouldn't dent the deficit
Peter Cohan
16 Aug 2011

Warren Buffett, America's second-richest man with a net worth of $45 billion (£27.6 billion), has offered to pay higher taxes.

In fact, in a New York Times editorial yesterday, he went so far as to provide enough statistics about his income and that of the other top 400 Americans to enable readers to calculate how far a rise in their taxes would go to balancing the budget - $16 billion.

And if we could get that to happen, then letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2% would restore the billions lost to the Treasury when they were passed in 2001.

Unfortunately, balancing the US budget is not the priority. Finding jobs for the 14.1 million looking for work is what most Americans want. But let's, for the sake of argument, assume there would be some merit in getting the US budget on more of an even keel. At least there seems to be some political consensus within Washington that this goal is imperative. There is division only on whether it should be achieved solely through spending cuts (Republican) or through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts (selected Democrats).

Buffett is among those Democrats who believe that tax increases would be fine and he has said many times before that he pays a lower tax rate than his administrative assistant, something he considers a travesty.

The logic for that difference between, say, a 36% rate on salary and wages and a 15% rate on capital gains is that the government is trying to encourage and reward capital investment to create companies.

I agree with Buffett that this is a worthy goal. But the interesting thing about this is many of the people paying that 15% - hedge funds and venture-capital firms - are not risking much of their own money. They are risking the capital of their limited partners. So to be true to the intent of the law that lets them pay 15%, they should only get the favourable tax treatment on the amount of profit they get when they risk their own capital and pay the higher rate for salaries on the income they earn from betting their limited partners' capital.

How much of a difference would this make to balancing the budget? Well in 2011, America is expected to generate a $1.6 trillion budget deficit. In 2008, the most recent year for which Buffett has statistics, he and the other 400 highest-paid people made $90.9 billion and paid a 21.5% tax rate (Buffett paid 17.5% in 2011).

If they paid, say, the 39% top rate on income that was in force when Bill Clinton was president (when the economy created 22.2 million jobs), they could add $16 billion to US revenues and if you simply let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2% it would add back the $700 billion he cut back in 2001 when he reduced the top tax rate on income. If you add back the peace dividend from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you start to make a serious dent in America's budget deficit.

But waitwon't tax rises cause companies to cut jobs? Not really. After all, the economy was creating millions of jobs when the tax rate was higher under Clinton. And big companies are not hiring workers now anyway because they have excess productive capacity.

Buffett has had the right idea: it's too bad his political skills are not as good as his investment acumen.

 
One of the best economists in the world today - with a real handle on key issues. Not partisan to any ideology or belief but well balanced approach imho...


Is Capitalism Doomed? by Author: Nouriel Roubini · August 15th, 2011

The massive volatility and sharp equity-price correction now hitting global financial markets signal that most advanced economies are on the brink of a double-dip recession. A financial and economic crisis caused by too much private-sector debt and leverage led to a massive re-leveraging of the public sector in order to prevent Great Depression 2.0. But the subsequent recovery has been anemic and sub-par in most advanced economies given painful deleveraging.

Now a combination of high oil and commodity prices, turmoil in the Middle East, Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, eurozone debt crises, and America’s fiscal problems (and now its rating downgrade) have led to a massive increase in risk aversion. Economically, the United States, the eurozone, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all idling. Even fast-growing emerging markets (China, emerging Asia, and Latin America), and export-oriented economies that rely on these markets (Germany and resource-rich Australia), are experiencing sharp slowdowns.

Until last year, policymakers could always produce a new rabbit from their hat to reflate asset prices and trigger economic recovery. Fiscal stimulus, near-zero interest rates, two rounds of “quantitative easing,” ring-fencing of bad debt, and trillions of dollars in bailouts and liquidity provision for banks and financial institutions: officials tried them all. Now they have run out of rabbits.

Fiscal policy currently is a drag on economic growth in both the eurozone and the UK. Even in the US, state and local governments, and now the federal government, are cutting expenditure and reducing transfer payments. Soon enough, they will be raising taxes.

Another round of bank bailouts is politically unacceptable and economically unfeasible: most governments, especially in Europe, are so distressed that bailouts are unaffordable; indeed, their sovereign risk is actually fueling concern about the health of Europe’s banks, which hold most of the increasingly shaky government paper.

Nor could monetary policy help very much. Quantitative easing is constrained by above-target inflation in the eurozone and UK. The US Federal Reserve will likely start a third round of quantitative easing (QE3), but it will be too little too late. Last year’s $600 billion QE2 and $1 trillion in tax cuts and transfers delivered growth of barely 3% for one quarter. Then growth slumped to below 1% in the first half of 2011. QE3 will be much smaller, and will do much less to reflate asset prices and restore growth.

Currency depreciation is not a feasible option for all advanced economies: they all need a weaker currency and better trade balance to restore growth, but they all cannot have it at the same time. So relying on exchange rates to influence trade balances is a zero-sum game. Currency wars are thus on the horizon, with Japan and Switzerland engaging in early battles to weaken their exchange rates. Others will soon follow.

Meanwhile, in the eurozone, Italy and Spain are now at risk of losing market access, with financial pressures now mounting on France, too. But Italy and Spain are both too big to fail and too big to be bailed out. For now, the European Central Bank will purchase some of their bonds as a bridge to the eurozone’s new European Financial Stabilization Facility. But, if Italy and/or Spain lose market access, the EFSF’s €440 billion ($627 billion) war chest could be depleted by the end of this year or early 2012.

Then, unless the EFSF pot were tripled – a move that Germany would resist – the only option left would become an orderly but coercive restructuring of Italian and Spanish debt, as has happened in Greece. Coercive restructuring of insolvent banks’ unsecured debt would be next. So, although the process of deleveraging has barely started, debt reductions will become necessary if countries cannot grow or save or inflate themselves out of their debt problems.

So Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalization, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct (though his view that socialism would be better has proven wrong). Firms are cutting jobs because there is not enough final demand. But cutting jobs reduces labor income, increases inequality and reduces final demand.

Recent popular demonstrations, from the Middle East to Israel to the UK, and rising popular anger in China – and soon enough in other advanced economies and emerging markets – are all driven by the same issues and tensions: growing inequality, poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness. Even the world’s middle classes are feeling the squeeze of falling incomes and opportunities.

To enable market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, we need to return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of laissez-faire and voodoo economics and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states. Both are broken.

The right balance today requires creating jobs partly through additional fiscal stimulus aimed at productive infrastructure investment. It also requires more progressive taxation; more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline; lender-of-last-resort support by monetary authorities to prevent ruinous runs on banks; reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents; and stricter supervision and regulation of a financial system run amok; breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and oligopolistic trusts.

Over time, advanced economies will need to invest in human capital, skills and social safety nets to increase productivity and enable workers to compete, be flexible and thrive in a globalized economy. The alternative is – like in the 1930s – unending stagnation, depression, currency and trade wars, capital controls, financial crisis, sovereign insolvencies, and massive social and political instability.

Nouriel Roubini is Chairman of Roubini Global Economics, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University, and co-author of the book Crisis Economics.
 
That is a load of boll0cks from the start.

The public sector is up to it's ar$e in debt because the private sector got in trouble?

No. The public sector was already up to its ar$e before it started bailing out all and sundry.

It's such a joke I can't be bothered to Fisk the rest of it.
 
One of the best economists in the world today - with a real handle on key issues. Not partisan to any ideology or belief but well balanced approach imho...


Is Capitalism Doomed? by Author: Nouriel Roubini · August 15th, 2011

The massive volatility and sharp equity-price correction now hitting global financial markets signal that most advanced economies are on the brink of a double-dip recession. A financial and economic crisis caused by too much private-sector debt and leverage led to a massive re-leveraging of the public sector in order to prevent Great Depression 2.0. But the subsequent recovery has been anemic and sub-par in most advanced economies given painful deleveraging.

Now a combination of high oil and commodity prices, turmoil in the Middle East, Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, eurozone debt crises, and America’s fiscal problems (and now its rating downgrade) have led to a massive increase in risk aversion. Economically, the United States, the eurozone, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all idling. Even fast-growing emerging markets (China, emerging Asia, and Latin America), and export-oriented economies that rely on these markets (Germany and resource-rich Australia), are experiencing sharp slowdowns.

Until last year, policymakers could always produce a new rabbit from their hat to reflate asset prices and trigger economic recovery. Fiscal stimulus, near-zero interest rates, two rounds of “quantitative easing,” ring-fencing of bad debt, and trillions of dollars in bailouts and liquidity provision for banks and financial institutions: officials tried them all. Now they have run out of rabbits.

Fiscal policy currently is a drag on economic growth in both the eurozone and the UK. Even in the US, state and local governments, and now the federal government, are cutting expenditure and reducing transfer payments. Soon enough, they will be raising taxes.

Another round of bank bailouts is politically unacceptable and economically unfeasible: most governments, especially in Europe, are so distressed that bailouts are unaffordable; indeed, their sovereign risk is actually fueling concern about the health of Europe’s banks, which hold most of the increasingly shaky government paper.

Nor could monetary policy help very much. Quantitative easing is constrained by above-target inflation in the eurozone and UK. The US Federal Reserve will likely start a third round of quantitative easing (QE3), but it will be too little too late. Last year’s $600 billion QE2 and $1 trillion in tax cuts and transfers delivered growth of barely 3% for one quarter. Then growth slumped to below 1% in the first half of 2011. QE3 will be much smaller, and will do much less to reflate asset prices and restore growth.

Currency depreciation is not a feasible option for all advanced economies: they all need a weaker currency and better trade balance to restore growth, but they all cannot have it at the same time. So relying on exchange rates to influence trade balances is a zero-sum game. Currency wars are thus on the horizon, with Japan and Switzerland engaging in early battles to weaken their exchange rates. Others will soon follow.

Meanwhile, in the eurozone, Italy and Spain are now at risk of losing market access, with financial pressures now mounting on France, too. But Italy and Spain are both too big to fail and too big to be bailed out. For now, the European Central Bank will purchase some of their bonds as a bridge to the eurozone’s new European Financial Stabilization Facility. But, if Italy and/or Spain lose market access, the EFSF’s €440 billion ($627 billion) war chest could be depleted by the end of this year or early 2012.

Then, unless the EFSF pot were tripled – a move that Germany would resist – the only option left would become an orderly but coercive restructuring of Italian and Spanish debt, as has happened in Greece. Coercive restructuring of insolvent banks’ unsecured debt would be next. So, although the process of deleveraging has barely started, debt reductions will become necessary if countries cannot grow or save or inflate themselves out of their debt problems.

So Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalization, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct (though his view that socialism would be better has proven wrong). Firms are cutting jobs because there is not enough final demand. But cutting jobs reduces labor income, increases inequality and reduces final demand.

Recent popular demonstrations, from the Middle East to Israel to the UK, and rising popular anger in China – and soon enough in other advanced economies and emerging markets – are all driven by the same issues and tensions: growing inequality, poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness. Even the world’s middle classes are feeling the squeeze of falling incomes and opportunities.

To enable market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, we need to return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of laissez-faire and voodoo economics and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states. Both are broken.

The right balance today requires creating jobs partly through additional fiscal stimulus aimed at productive infrastructure investment. It also requires more progressive taxation; more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline; lender-of-last-resort support by monetary authorities to prevent ruinous runs on banks; reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents; and stricter supervision and regulation of a financial system run amok; breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and oligopolistic trusts.

Over time, advanced economies will need to invest in human capital, skills and social safety nets to increase productivity and enable workers to compete, be flexible and thrive in a globalized economy. The alternative is – like in the 1930s – unending stagnation, depression, currency and trade wars, capital controls, financial crisis, sovereign insolvencies, and massive social and political instability.

Nouriel Roubini is Chairman of Roubini Global Economics, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University, and co-author of the book Crisis Economics.

So did you read post 241 ? The only way to go is Austrian :)

Big govts are state are redundant...they just don't quite realise it yet, but they will !
 
Big govts are state are redundant...they just don't quite realise it yet, but they will !

Governments/states as we know them will eventually dwindle in relevance/influence. All existing governments/states are essentially geographically based ie they have always depended on the areas in which they can communicate their influence and enforce their particular flavour of law. The state has traditionally been the most basic metric of association and legal compulsion eg I'm [English|French] so I do what the [English|French] do. Now, people are more free to associate and contract on wholly arbitrary bases (eg interests/ideologies/needs), and in many cases, to move themselves and their activities if they don't like the local 'state'.

It will take a very long time, and may only be precipitated when people start moving off the planet, but the days of geographical states are numbered. That is not to say the state won't be replaced with something else (my best guess is that legal persons (ie both humans and corporations) will contract for rights/services/obligations/protections with an array of corporations), but existing geographical states will dwindle in relevance.

However, none of this solves the world's present malaises, so you can all feel free to tell me where I can stick my futurology.
 
Governments/states as we know them will eventually dwindle in relevance/influence. All existing governments/states are essentially geographically based ie they have always depended on the areas in which they can communicate their influence and enforce their particular flavour of law. The state has traditionally been the most basic metric of association and legal compulsion eg I'm [English|French] so I do what the [English|French] do. Now, people are more free to associate and contract on wholly arbitrary bases (eg interests/ideologies/needs), and in many cases, to move themselves and their activities if they don't like the local 'state'.

It will take a very long time, and may only be precipitated when people start moving off the planet, but the days of geographical states are numbered. That is not to say the state won't be replaced with something else (my best guess is that legal persons (ie both humans and corporations) will contract for rights/services/obligations/protections with an array of corporations), but existing geographical states will dwindle in relevance.

However, none of this solves the world's present malaises, so you can all feel free to tell me where I can stick my futurology.


Before WW1 - no passports were required. One could go and travel anywhere one desired providing they had the means to do so and adhered to local policy of the destination - unless they had big guns and could enforce their own...
 
Before WW1 - no passports were required. One could go and travel anywhere one desired providing they had the means to do so and adhered to local policy of the destination - unless they had big guns and could enforce their own...

That is incorrect.
 
Warren Buffett’s Tax Dodge – WSJ.com


http://sroblog.com/2011/08/16/warren-buffetts-tax-dodge-wsj-com/

The billionaire volunteers the middle class for a tax increase

"What he doesn’t say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."

"Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment."
 
I had high hopes of Obama to:-

1. Rein in Israel
2. Re-invigorate the USA

Regretably he has done neither very much and just gone down the left wing liberal road of spending, spending and you guessed it more bloody spending. The left wing just can't get it through their limited imaginations that it will all have to be paid for one way or the other !! Silly s*ds
 
Warren Buffett’s Tax Dodge – WSJ.com


http://sroblog.com/2011/08/16/warren-buffetts-tax-dodge-wsj-com/

The billionaire volunteers the middle class for a tax increase

"What he doesn’t say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."

"Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment."


1. Raise taxes
2. Cut spending
3. Maintain negative interest rates < rate of inflation

=> Pay off debt.


Anything else is pure politics and BS...


So far we've had...

1. Cut taxes
2. Raise spending
- Wars
- Defence
- NASA
- Bank bailouts

- Pension failure round the bend too...

Social spending is dwarfed by the big four above (and the medical bill is very recent thus not cause for twin defecits).

This second scenario will lead to => Anarchy and chaos and much suffering if it is not addressed.


Rest is all pure political BS...
 
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut spending
3. Maintain negative interest rates < rate of inflation

=> Pay off debt.

...

Why don't you explain how interest rates are being held artificially low?

Also, explain inflation and where it comes from.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you explain how interest rates are being held artificially low?

Same as giving tax cuts when no revenue in the coffers...

Same as spending on wars, pentagon and NASA when no money in coffers.


Nod your head if you understand... :cheesy:
 
Same as giving tax cuts when no revenue in the coffers...

Same as spending on wars, pentagon and NASA when no money in coffers.


Nod your head if you understand... :cheesy:

Nice attempt to deflect the fact that you haven't got a clue.:rolleyes:

How is your inflation tax avoidance investment going?:rolleyes:
 
Nice attempt to deflect the fact that you haven't got a clue.:rolleyes:

How is your inflation tax avoidance investment going?:rolleyes:


You know how it is... two steps forward and one step back... (y)

Any tips or advice will be greatfully received... :)
 
Warren Buffett’s Tax Dodge – WSJ.com


http://sroblog.com/2011/08/16/warren-buffetts-tax-dodge-wsj-com/

The billionaire volunteers the middle class for a tax increase

"What he doesn’t say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."

"Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment."

Warren Buffet has made a lot of money. He is, also, older than my 79 years.

My question is, is he really worried, at his time of life, about his tax situation? If I had the same attitude towards wealth accumulation as he has, I'd probably be better off than him , so, perhaps what I think cannot be the same as his. Nevertheless, I don't think that he is too worried about tax at his stage of the game. If I had a lot of money like he has, I think that I would set up a trust, somehow, to help those that need it.

**** tax savings, you need to be young for that!
 
Warren Buffet has made a lot of money. He is, also, older than my 79 years.

My question is, is he really worried, at his time of life, about his tax situation? If I had the same attitude towards wealth accumulation as he has, I'd probably be better off than him , so, perhaps what I think cannot be the same as his. Nevertheless, I don't think that he is too worried about tax at his stage of the game. If I had a lot of money like he has, I think that I would set up a trust, somehow, to help those that need it.

**** tax savings, you need to be young for that!

He isn't really worried about his tax situation, that is the point. He is being disingenuous whereas some just haven’t got a clue.
 
He isn't really worried about his tax situation, that is the point. He is being disingenuous whereas some just haven’t got a clue.

He is old and wise - which can't be said to many other people...

You've seen the film Brewsters Millions?

You couldn't spend all that money if one tried... :)
 
Top