Phrazemaster
Well-known member
@JR - thanks for your well thought out response. We see things very differently but you still made good points, so thank-you.
economy
- Thread starter JohnRoberts
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
+1 - hilarious!!!tands said:
T
tands
Guest
I really like the idea of government service being a sacrifice -- or rather let's make it sound more positive as in 'serving' the people. Not sure I'd like to see only millionaires in politics -- cause 'poor' people simply cannot 'afford' serving in that way.
Anyway how about turning it around: turn serving as a politician into a well or tremendously well paid job, but simultaneously allow no other active income and 'side' earnings whatsoever & stipulate that any passive income by said politician (and I mean all passive income!!) while 'serving' automatically goes over to the state (i..e. while serving and extend even for a few more years after serving -- to prevent postponement). That's what I'd call a sacrifice (albeit a really well paid one). I'm pretty sure this would keep quite a number of today's politicians from pursuing that profession (those who maybe do so for the wrong reasons in the first place), while inviting and allowing all people, including the less affluent, to also go for it.
Oh, and while at it, also take back that recent US law that allows private/corporate financing of parties and election campaigns. What was the law called again? I forgot -- but the worst idea ever...
Our founders were wealthy landowners, millionaires or the equivalent, while these days that is considered a negative.Script said:
I have long argued that our elected representatives in congress whose day job amounts to spending trillions of taxpayer dollars should be paid commensurate with that spending authority to reduce the temptation to trade on that.
just make it illegal to trade on inside information and it will stop... it is not illegal now, they make their own rules for themselves in the swamp.
I am OK with people entering politics after they have already been successful in private industry. Working at high levels inside a real corporation teaches a spending discipline that doesn't exist inside government. That discipline could eliminate billions (trillions?) of waste from modern government spending.
I suspect you are thinking about the supreme court decision (Citizens united vs FEC). This is often misrepresented as a gift to big business but lobbying government for personal interests is speech protected by the constitution. What we are all angry about (me too) is the disproportionate power enjoyed by big business lobbyists, but stopping business lobbying without balancing the other side of the scale (similarly disproportionate power enjoyed by government worker unions). Another familiar old rant of mine, "why do government workers need unions for protection?? protection from the government, from taxpayers? It all comes down to political juice or power.... I do not see any easy remedy other than reducing the slop that all the hogs are attracted to in DC (federal spending). If we reduce the huge federal budget, and intrusive regulation we will reduce all the crony capitalism because it will no longer be worth trying to influence legislators.
======
Another shift that I have watched over several decades is government worker pay. I recall "government work" being a pejorative term to describe workers who were not in demand at private industry. Government jobs were attractive for low/unskilled workers because it wasn't very challenging and harder to get fired from... while hard to advance very high too.
Now it seems government jobs are pretty well paid while still not very challenging (I assume). They sure are not very good stewards over distributing taxpayer money, tolerating high levels of fraud.
"Citizens United" is probably a hot button political topic, so my flame suit is on, and secured. 8)
JR
PS: For an unrelated economic observation I worry that the very high levels of taxation that states are charging legal recreational pot use, will support illegal pot trading. The primary benefit of legalizing pot was to remove profit from the criminal enterprise. While criminals will not change their spots and shift to other illegal substances (fentanyl?), selling pot illegally can probably coexist supported by high enough state taxation. The recent push by the attorney general to enforce federal law is to force congress to revisit the statues and decriminalize pot to harmonize federal law with the inevitable wave of state legalization, that is building momentum. It sets a bad precedent to tolerate states ignoring federal law. We need to change the federal laws to eliminate conflicts (like marijuana legaization and sanctuary cities for a start).
T
tands
Guest
T
tands
Guest
T
tands
Guest
T
tands
Guest
Just read that the student loan program is projected to soon turn into a deficit and drain on treasury. All the loan forgiveness programs have come home to roost leading to losses, requiring the taxpayers to kick in the difference (not yet but soon).
If we wanted to just give away taxpayer money (like we already do with smaller grant programs) that's OK, if it is planned and budgeted, but this mission creep into an unplanned larger giveaway is moving spending in the wrong direction without thoughtful deliberation (like a budget).
JR
PS: I mentioned years ago how all the too easy lending would cause college costs to rise... I dislike being correct about this (too).
If we wanted to just give away taxpayer money (like we already do with smaller grant programs) that's OK, if it is planned and budgeted, but this mission creep into an unplanned larger giveaway is moving spending in the wrong direction without thoughtful deliberation (like a budget).
JR
PS: I mentioned years ago how all the too easy lending would cause college costs to rise... I dislike being correct about this (too).
rather than fix blame, I prefer to fix the system.fazer said:
I expect more employer participation in education costs. Technology is changing so fast it is almost obsolete in 4 years. Job position specific training makes a lot of sense (IMO).
"and" the internet should make the actual cost of training fall, instead of rise (like when government throws truckloads of money at it).
JR
CJ
Well-known member
"The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, nearly double last year’s amount
The Treasury Department attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt: Tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law."
whats interest like on 1 Trillion?
The Treasury Department attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt: Tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law."
whats interest like on 1 Trillion?
Attachments
Matador
Well-known member
It doesn't matter - interest on the debt will only become a looming disaster during the next Democratic administration (whenever that happens).CJ said:
Spiritworks
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
WTF, I worked nights for eight years to pay off my student loans, cleaning office buildings. And that included the toilets and the nasty ash trays that were on the desks at the time.
T
tands
Guest
CJ said:
I have actually written about this at length, right here. Running a budget deficit is commonly done based on an expectation of GDP growth to expand receipts making up some or most of the difference. However we have experienced weak GDP growth for over a decade. It is really hard to get an economic projection that doesn't show some amount of political bias. The last administration said low economic growth was the new normal, and that was our reality under them. The new administration is promoting higher economic growth and time will tell if they are successful (if we are successful)?google sez said:
======
The debt service is an interesting aspect. Interest rates have been at historic lows for longer than expected. In addition the central bank manipulated debt auctions by buying our own debt to keep bond prices low. This was all part of the extraordinary response to the debt crisis 2007/8, ten years ago and still having an influence. The good news is we survived the worst of it and the central bank has been unwinding these extraordinary measures for about a year now, but this must be done gradually to not shock the system (bond markets). Some other central banks are not easing yet, and since liquidity is fungible international growth is remarkably strong and seems to be coordinated. (Typically some regions would grow while others decline, not all growing like now.)
Some (like me) have argued that they kept monetary policy too easy for too long creating bubbles in sundry asset classes. They intentionally inflated home prices as a bailout for the many people who were underwater, because too easy lending, and the expectation that home prices would rise to the sky, led them to buy houses they really couldn't afford. Some are still underwater. They also inflated hard asset prices like stocks, trying to create a "wealth effect" hoping people will feel better about the future and consume more if they felt wealthier.
Other bubbles will be revealed as the liquidity tide goes out. The central bank is withdrawing liquidity very slowly for this reason.
The larger concern is the roughly $20 trillion total debt. The increasing interest rate cycle will surely increase debt service and the central bank should take advantage of low long term debt rates, but they tend to buy a lot of short term debt that is easier to manipulate (distort) the market pricing.
The sovereign debt risk is generally viewed as a percentage of total GDP and we are far from the worst country in that regard but we should be concerned. While it is difficult to look at this without politics, an increasing fraction of the federal budget is what is called non-discretionary spending... i.e. entitlement spending that is locked in and keeps increasing. (That's why I noted the student loan program flipping from profitable to yet another drain on our federal budget, due to loan forgiveness programs.)
Growing the economy faster is the only win-win-win to avoid a future debt crisis, and support current (high) spending levels, but that is a work in process. If we believe our politicians in DC, every single thing is a crisis, and a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. :
Of course opinions vary.
JR
PS: We are not out of the woods for the bond market completely normalizing, but i can't predict that either.
T
tands
Guest
T
