The Future of the United States of America

[Sane Man]

Though! I must admit, Being an Australian. I have to say that so far Obama is the best president elected to date. He seems to KNOW that in general, most other countries (I know most Australians do) think that America is just a sack of big talking yokals being big mouths and (Wrongly) thinking they know what's best.

I won't say anything of your country (why, really?) but I suppose we can use that as an excuse for your absurd claim that Obama is the best president elected to this date. He has passed the largest spending bill in the history of the United States, and we have yet to see exactly what it will do. Along with the fact he's only been President for little over one month.

I guess if all YOU are looking for in an American leader is someone who pays lip service to your country, then that's one thing. I, however, have to LIVE in America and would much like a President that cares about Americans first, and not what other countries think of me.

I won't even touch upon what most Americans I know think of your country.

 

[Slakah]

I won't even touch upon what most Americans I know think of your country.

That it's north of Iran?

(for those who don't get it www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE)

 

[Horticulture]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, here it is. The most powerful nation in the world is now crumbling in economic ruin. Will it pull out of its slump and march on valiantly? Or will it collapse upon itself like the bloated politicians that have come to run it?

Hopefully it'll crumble, the majority of citizens in the U.S. will realize that they may be the most powerful nation, but that doesn't mean any other nation has to bloody listen to them and in general the world will be a happier place because the majority of Americans will finally have a slice of humble pie and realize what a big ass they've made of themselves over the last few years.

Purely hopeful on my place here. But I know too many (About 99 in 100 (At best... That's probably hopelessly wrong)) Americans that are like that, they think 'America is the most powerful nation in the world so listen to us! We're the best so we have the best ideas!'

Though! I must admit, Being an Australian. I have to say that so far Obama is the best president elected to date. He seems to KNOW that in general, most other countries (I know most Australians do) think that America is just a sack of big talking yokals being big mouths and (Wrongly) thinking they know what's best.

If it's any consolation, the feeling is mutual. Except instead of generalizing my indignation to your entire country, I'll save it all for you.

 

[Dele]

My links prove that instituionalised, state-run healthcare is considerably more efficent than privately-run healthcare, so I'm pretty sure that demonstrates that the economies of scale for nationalised public healthcare are considerably greater than for split-up public healthcare.
Interestingly, private healthcare in Britain pays nurses less than it does in the NHS. Yes, working conditions in the NHS are less pleasant, but quite frankly all the money that firms like BUPA make is not going to be going on their nursing staff, or their doctors, and that problem is only going to get worse if public healthcare were abandoned, for as Smith points out there is always a tacit co-ordination between employers to keep the wages of labour as low as possible.

Three years later Finland had healthcare spending of 4,031$ per capita. Either your graph is bull or cost of healthcare just doubled while reducing the % of GDP spending.

Aggregate wages will rise in lock-step with productivity, as will, presuming constant levels of employment, average wages. However, median wages have no such guarantees, and those are much more relevant to the quality of life of a given population. If George Soros, for instance, were to develop a taste for the countryside and move into an economically depressed rural neighborhood with five other families, it'd rank somewhere above the Hamptons in terms average income by residents. Certainly, that'd be one rich neighborhood (hell, the whole state would probably 'get richer'). Median income, though would stay nearly the same. If you still don?t see this as a problem, it?s representative of a fundamental disagreement in outlook.

I definitely dont see a problem if somebody moves and messes up statistics but I dont think you meant that. There is no artificial force keeping income inequalities so there essentially is no problem unless you assume that economics is a zero-sum game which it is not. With economic growth, you essentially are richer than similiar folks 50 or 100 years ago in your position.

I don?t think it?s possible to have either a healthy democracy or market freedom, in practical terms (regardless of de jure freedoms). Education is only valuable to human capital formation only if an educated person is valuable only as human capital. I like to think that our capacity to have, and presumably enjoy, this discussion is proof that education has certain externalities. I do, however, agree with the principle of freedom in education. I?m quite ambivalent about how it?s best expressed, because there are some skills that are either essential to functioning in contemporary society (literacy etc.) or efficient for employers to assume their would-be workers possess. Furthermore, a society postulated on democracy cannot function if it?s not composed of people who understand how their government and economy function at a basic level.

I agree that there are skills that are useful to society as whole, but since I dont trust the state to make the right assesment, I recommend a laissez-faire approach. People will learn what they think is useful (instead of taking all those poem courses . I do hope that you were joking with "people understanding how things function". Recently we had a study that 25% of our adult population doesn't know what different political parties represent and what is difference between socialism and capitalism. 70% Thinks that we live in a market economy (instead of mixed economy) and 75% cant name a political party in government. The best education system in the world shows it's claws again. It still amazes me how the people always know what is best for them and their opinions must be respected in democracy... Oh wait our politicians have already figured out that they really dont need to. Maybe that's why presentative democracy is such a failure.

The theory now falls apart. Decreased demand for investment leads to-surprise, surprise-increased demand for the means of exchange one receives from selling those investments: cash. In the absence of further credit, this means that demand for cash now exceeds supply. Regardless of the source of the original distortion, it was, as the theory claims, a speculative investment bubble. In the goods economy, a purchase equals a sale, and a PS3 that rolls off the line is always worth 1 PS3, regardless of financial hijinks or inflation. The productive capacity, idle workers, and excess stores stem from the cash deficit in the economy, making consumers want to hold cash and artificially depressing demand.

Denying a monetary policy solution to this impasse condemns everyone in the economy to suffer for the sins of investors, at least until the market gets around to sorting its shit out.
Do you advocate the use of a gold standard?

Oj oj, you sure wanna focus on post-recession when the real question is about how recessions are created in the first place. Given that we have a central bank in austrian business cycle recession, of course there is a need for monetary policy. Just like tariffs were a tool in Mercantilistic systems. Your argument is something like this "Central bank is useful in recessions, therefore it is needed". Still, it is highly debatable if business cycles are an inherit flaw in capitalistic system and even if they were, they would be extremely short thus failing to justify the need for central banks monetary policy. I repeat that if central banks are a major cause of recessions, theyre not worth having even if their monetary policy can soften the recession a bit.

No I dont advocate the gold standard, which would propably get me burned as a heretic within Austrian circles.

 

[Horticulture]

I definitely dont see a problem if somebody moves and messes up statistics but I dont think you meant that. There is no artificial force keeping income inequalities so there essentially is no problem unless you assume that economics is a zero-sum game which it is not. With economic growth, you essentially are richer than similiar folks 50 or 100 years ago in your position.

Economics may not be zero-sum in the long-run (though an argument could be made that it is...let me ponder that one) but it is in the short-run (where real productivity growth is either fixed or zero depending on the shortness of the run), and we have the misfortune to live our lives, for now, in the short run. Surely you can see the timelessness of this statement.

Seriously, though, it seems to me that concentration of wealth and gross disparities of income serve to skew an economy further towards investment than present consumption. To a certain extent, this can obviously be desirable, but the risk of having the goods economy whipsawed by a topheavy distribution of wealth pumping up investment seems like a recipe for the occasional bubble, regardless of currency.

I agree that there are skills that are useful to society as whole, but since I dont trust the state to make the right assesment, I recommend a laissez-faire approach. People will learn what they think is useful (instead of taking all those poem courses . I do hope that you were joking with "people understanding how things function". Recently we had a study that 25% of our adult population doesn't know what different political parties represent and what is difference between socialism and capitalism. 70% Thinks that we live in a market economy (instead of mixed economy) and 75% cant name a political party in government. The best education system in the world shows it's claws again. It still amazes me how the people always know what is best for them and their opinions must be respected in democracy... Oh wait our politicians have already figured out that they really dont need to. Maybe that's why presentative democracy is such a failure.

I wasn't joking with the comment about people understanding how things function, and I think we differ here not in goals but methods. It seems to me that the solution to an excess of ignorance is better education, spread just as broadly. Removing state-provided education would only make things vastly worse for the majority of the population. Plus, certain standards must be in place (as much as this hurts me to say, having only recently finished with standardized testing) if a diploma is to be worth anything. As much as I appreciate the ideal of education being evaluated by standards of knowledge rather than certification, I can only express my deepest sympathies to the employer tasked with determining the best-educated candidates without the aid of degrees.

Oj oj, you sure wanna focus on post-recession when the real question is about how recessions are created in the first place. Given that we have a central bank in austrian business cycle recession, of course there is a need for monetary policy. Just like tariffs were a tool in Mercantilistic systems. Your argument is something like this "Central bank is useful in recessions, therefore it is needed". Still, it is highly debatable if business cycles are an inherit flaw in capitalistic system and even if they were, they would be extremely short thus failing to justify the need for central banks monetary policy. I repeat that if central banks are a major cause of recessions, theyre not worth having even if their monetary policy can soften the recession a bit.

Like Fondant said, recessions predate central banking, though, as illustrated by the long depression and possibly the experience of Britain in the 1820s (data aren't readily available, but there was definitely a stock crash). It's also necessary to have some medium of exchange, and central banks provide the most practical (printed and regulated money). To be honest, I can't even think of an alternative worthy of consideration.

A central bank (hear me out here) obsessively pursuing price-stability (low-inflation) policies would almost certainly artificially limit growth and increase unemployment due to a money supply erring on the tight side, and eventually a chronic lack of credit would suck it in from outside, in an open economy (putting a strain on demand for already tight currency to exchange, I might add). This is well-illustrated in the case of Europe (the Eurozone and its pegs, anyway): tight monetary policy by the ECB (and reluctance to act in the face of recession-truly the worst of both worlds), combined, admittedly, with some questionable employment regulations, yields high unemployment numbers and overall unimpressive growth.

Nonetheless, the effects of the present recession have savaged Europe: Ireland, Germany (reeling from the auto sector), Poland, and Latvia have been browbeaten despite a lack of gross mismanagement at home. The Euro did remain strong prior to the crisis (I recall grudgingly ponying up $1.60 and above in exchange), but if anything this served to weaken export markets and encourage purchases and investments abroad. This just increased exposure (due to investments in markets with weaker currencies) when the other foot finally dropped. The cycle is still there, but its peaks are less pronounced. The troughs, however, are just as deep.

No I dont advocate the gold standard, which would propably get me burned as a heretic within Austrian circles.

I'm quite relieved to hear it. What is your preferred alternative, then? If you say free banking, it'll break my heart.

 

[Dele]

Economics may not be zero-sum in the long-run (though an argument could be made that it is...let me ponder that one) but it is in the short-run (where real productivity growth is either fixed or zero depending on the shortness of the run), and we have the misfortune to live our lives, for now, in the short run. Surely you can see the timelessness of this statement.

Seriously, though, it seems to me that concentration of wealth and gross disparities of income serve to skew an economy further towards investment than present consumption. To a certain extent, this can obviously be desirable, but the risk of having the goods economy whipsawed by a topheavy distribution of wealth pumping up investment seems like a recipe for the occasional bubble, regardless of currency.

It's hard to develope a realistic scenario that is essentially zero-sum even in the short run but go ahead if you have something in your mind.

Considering your bubble scenario, would not these poorer people consume the wealth created as their wages increase thus preventing the bubble unless there is excessive debt taken?

I wasn't joking with the comment about people understanding how things function, and I think we differ here not in goals but methods. It seems to me that the solution to an excess of ignorance is better education, spread just as broadly. Removing state-provided education would only make things vastly worse for the majority of the population. Plus, certain standards must be in place (as much as this hurts me to say, having only recently finished with standardized testing) if a diploma is to be worth anything. As much as I appreciate the ideal of education being evaluated by standards of knowledge rather than certification, I can only express my deepest sympathies to the employer tasked with determining the best-educated candidates without the aid of degrees.

How does one produce "better education"? I cant see how the state can do any better at educating, yet we still have a huge number of ignorant people.

Standardization is an issue, but I am only suggesting this freedom of learning to upper compulsory schools and high schools (for now). I dont know about your system but in ours there would not be a need for standardization on those levels.

A central bank (hear me out here) obsessively pursuing price-stability (low-inflation) policies would almost certainly artificially limit growth and increase unemployment due to a money supply erring on the tight side, and eventually a chronic lack of credit would suck it in from outside, in an open economy (putting a strain on demand for already tight currency to exchange, I might add). This is well-illustrated in the case of Europe (the Eurozone and its pegs, anyway): tight monetary policy by the ECB (and reluctance to act in the face of recession-truly the worst of both worlds), combined, admittedly, with some questionable employment regulations, yields high unemployment numbers and overall unimpressive growth.

Nonetheless, the effects of the present recession have savaged Europe: Ireland, Germany (reeling from the auto sector), Poland, and Latvia have been browbeaten despite a lack of gross mismanagement at home. The Euro did remain strong prior to the crisis (I recall grudgingly ponying up $1.60 and above in exchange), but if anything this served to weaken export markets and encourage purchases and investments abroad. This just increased exposure (due to investments in markets with weaker currencies) when the other foot finally dropped. The cycle is still there, but its peaks are less pronounced. The troughs, however, are just as deep.

ECB cant be used as an example since it's policies are always wrong to member countries no matter what it does due unintergrated economies. It's not uncommon to see Spanish whining about too low interest rates, yet Italians complain how high rates are killing their economy.

I'm quite relieved to hear it. What is your preferred alternative, then? If you say free banking, it'll break my heart.

Friedman's k-percent rule coupled with auctioning of the loan money to get the market-determined interest rate.

 

[asteroth21nox]

Well, the future of the united states I must agree is grim. I honestly think it's going to get alot worse.Society is a hungery beast which is used to being constantly fed and pampered, especially society in the united states.The fate of all civilization is ruin no matter how you slice it and is unavoidable. It is only a matter of time,like Rome,before civilization crumbles. When a society is focused and revolves around money, then it's only a matter of time before money loses it's value one way or another. And when money loses it's value via mass production of course it spells ruin. There is too much money with so little value in it barrowed from the original money supply which was backed in gold, GOLD I tell you! lol What's it backed in now? not a damn thing, just legal tender now...might as well be toilet papper. What really needs to happen is that people need to start thinking about a resource based economy instead, putting back value into the money system or better yet, just toss out the whole monitary system altogether. But no, change is often resisted instead of embraced, so first americans will have to endure war, martial law, and propbably horendious forms of forced compliance to keep things from going insane...then probably rebellion, THEN change at long last sadly. I swear, it's like watching a group of people try and fix a busted car that just can't be fixed anymore. There is only so many times you can replace parts and change the oil before she finally stops running....time for a whole new car. But no says the average dribbiling idiot, "It's the best car on the street, it runs just fine!, your car sucks compaired to mine!"...sorry, I know I'm working that metaphore to death but it just so well explains whats going on right now.

 

[quack35]

Why the hell are people blaming the common people of America and saying it's their fault and they deserve it?

It's those selfish rich fucks who got us into this!

 

[Horticulture]

Standardization is an issue, but I am only suggesting this freedom of learning to upper compulsory schools and high schools (for now). I dont know about your system but in ours there would not be a need for standardization on those levels.

In that case, we're of the same mind here.

ECB cant be used as an example since it's policies are always wrong to member countries no matter what it does due unintergrated economies. It's not uncommon to see Spanish whining about too low interest rates, yet Italians complain how high rates are killing their economy.

Even Germany and France, who have pretty strong sway over the ECB, have the slow growth/high unemployment problem. Plus Italy as a whole has never had a functioning economy

Friedman's k-percent rule coupled with auctioning of the loan money to get the market-determined interest rate.

This makes sense taken with your assertion that business cycles would cease to exist or become very mild without an active central bank, but I'm still not convinced of that. If your assertion holds true, then market-determined interest rates make sense, but if it doesn't, the need for active interest rate manipulation remains.

If only Will Wright had made SimEconomy instead of Spore.


I came across an article a little while ago that has Friedman distancing himself from constant-growth monetary policy. Unfortunately, it spends more words on their lunch than his reasons for dong so:
http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=lunch+with+the+FT+Friedman+London&y=0&aje=true&x=0&id=030606003906&ct=0&nclick_check=1

 

[Horticulture]

Well, the future of the united states I must agree is grim. I honestly think it's going to get alot worse.Society is a hungery beast which is used to being constantly fed and pampered, especially society in the united states.The fate of all civilization is ruin no matter how you slice it and is unavoidable. It is only a matter of time,like Rome,before civilization crumbles. When a society is focused and revolves around money, then it's only a matter of time before money loses it's value one way or another. And when money loses it's value via mass production of course it spells ruin. There is too much money with so little value in it barrowed from the original money supply which was backed in gold, GOLD I tell you! lol What's it backed in now? not a damn thing, just legal tender now...might as well be toilet papper. What really needs to happen is that people need to start thinking about a resource based economy instead, putting back value into the money system or better yet, just toss out the whole monitary system altogether. But no, change is often resisted instead of embraced, so first americans will have to endure war, martial law, and propbably horendious forms of forced compliance to keep things from going insane...then probably rebellion, THEN change at long last sadly. I swear, it's like watching a group of people try and fix a busted car that just can't be fixed anymore. There is only so many times you can replace parts and change the oil before she finally stops running....time for a whole new car. But no says the average dribbiling idiot, "It's the best car on the street, it runs just fine!, your car sucks compaired to mine!"...sorry, I know I'm working that metaphore to death but it just so well explains whats going on right now.

Paragraph breaks look like this.

All the cool kids are usin' em.

 

[Acid Armageddon]

Apparently, one of Russias advisors is predicting within a YEAR, America will collapse and "form six rump-states" and China and Russia will eventually form the backbone of the world...



I call Bull!!

 

[McClaud]

Paragraph breaks look like this.

All the cool kids are usin' em.

Indeed. I summon Bigby's Magic Formatter!

Apparently, one of Russias advisors is predicting within a YEAR, America will collapse and "form six rump-states" and China and Russia will eventually form the backbone of the world...

I call Bull!!

Again, it's Russia. Whenever they start to feel irrelevant, they do or say something controversial to get on the media radar.

HEY RUSSIA - WE GET IT. YOU ARE RELEVANT. PLZ STOP BEING 'TARDS THX.

 

[Torque2100]

The Obama years will be Jimmy Carter 2.0. I predict 25-30% unemployment and inflation that makes post WWI Germany seem like a nice place to live. Which suits the President just fine, the more we suffer, the bigger his electorate gets. So we will continue to suffer, our freedoms and prosperity slowly stolen from us as the government continues to bloat and the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers rob their own children blind ad inifinitum. There will be no end to this, thanks to the wonders of computer assisted bureaucracy, governments can persist no matter how bloated and inefficient they become.

Short revolution, terrorist attack or global nuclear war to jolt us out of this cycle, this is our future and it will never stop. Too many people are so hopelessly dependent on this system and will do anything, sacrifice any freedom, destroy any life just to keep the bloated machine running one more day.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Apparently, one of Russias advisors is predicting within a YEAR, America will collapse and "form six rump-states" and China and Russia will eventually form the backbone of the world...



I call Bull!!

Who knows, world history has always moved in bizarre directions, and the state of affairs is always changing. People never seem to realize that things are always changing, maybe slowly at first but it can rush up on you. All I'm saying is: you never know exactly how things will turn out.

 

[Steelfists]

P.S. Assuming your Brittish, this is one of the reasons we rebelled, rose to power faster then you, and eventually took the World from you.

Actually, the reason you rose to power so quickly was because of World War 1, everyone needed loans off of you so to this day Europe is still paying it back, it had nothing to do with the American Dream, also the reason you took the world from us was because we decided, like in the second world war to fight from the beginning, instead of joinning at the end and taking all of the glory, this meant we got bankrupt defending the world from tyranny and oppression.

We didn't join at the end we joined in 1942, which is about the middle.

Damn, I was hoping no one would notice that, my point still stands that it was because of the 2 world wars that America and Russia became world superpowers.

True, but everyone with half a brain knows that.

The Amazing Orgazmo didn't, that's why I posted in the first place.

You pompous, arrogant stereotype of a Brittish person, I know about everything you just said. And if you read clearly, I never mentioned that the American dream was the reason we rose to power so quickly. If there's anything honorable that lead us to power, it was the building of the Atomic bomb, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, I'm not sure we should have used them to end the war, but at least we managed to take our dominance.

P.S. I think you were confused, my good man. When I said: "This is why we rebelled and rose to power so quickly..." was because of how you treated us, not because of the American dream, much like you did to the Americans on this server.

Well... you're a tosser. See, its not nice to be insulted is it?

The thing I find most interesting about how the USA started is when the settlers stopped being British. I know some of the first ones, the people who left because of religious persecution, didn't consider themselves British, but I think many of the later ones did.
The British built up an infrastructure for the nation, and even chased out a few Indian tribes.

I think they decided to make a new country because it would be more profitable for them. Not becuase they were being treated badly, taxes are taxes. In those days they rose and fall with the wars and shit.

 

[Jman1236]

It's very hard to tell as of right now, it could go ether way, but all we can do is take it one thing at a time and pull thru it as one nation. We've been thru worse and we can get thru this. I trust that God has big plans still for the US in the future in his grand plan.

 

[Dele]

Even Germany and France, who have pretty strong sway over the ECB, have the slow growth/high unemployment problem. Plus Italy as a whole has never had a functioning economy

ECB look at the Eurozone as a whole, although you are right that Germany and France have a lot of influence so it never is optimal. Even then slow growth and high employment (compared to US) can be attributed to larger public sector ("Social market economy") and better unemployment pay.

This makes sense taken with your assertion that business cycles would cease to exist or become very mild without an active central bank, but I'm still not convinced of that. If your assertion holds true, then market-determined interest rates make sense, but if it doesn't, the need for active interest rate manipulation remains.

It will erase or milden cycles caused by a central bank, but state still retains the ability to cause bubbles/recessions with bad policies. There is also currently debate going on whenever k-percent can beat inflation targeting due the model being untested.



Please tell me that Fed dropping the interest rates low (discount rate was even below 1% for a while) at 2001 was the right move when looking at real state markets. After dot.com bubble there were fears of large recession so Fed (and Bush) overplayed it and as we can see there, housing markets went wild and here we are on our current situation. This would have never happened had the interest rates been market determined.

 

[Goldbling]

I wish there was something I could have done, but hey, I'm only 15, what do I know about the economy, banking, inflation, and foreign policy?