Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 May 2012, 10:47 am

danivon wrote:Point is, Steve, that a BBA didn't stop California from building up problems.


Quite right. It was irresponsible spending and irresponsible environmental restrictions.

Oh, and we weren't insolvent and we were in a far better position than Greece. And we also use the money printing trick of QE, which we can because we are not in the Euro.


And, you probably don't have their absurd retirement policies (I think it's 52 for many professions).

By the way, Spain's debt is lower than Germany's.


Debt as a percentage of GDP? I thought not.

Spain's major problem - like that of Ireland - is not that the government is directly in trouble fiscally, it's that banks are in deep hock thanks to a property bubble bursting (Spain has a ridiculous number of empty homes). Because bank deposits are guaranteed to a limit, and because failing banks are a really bad think for a nation's economy, the government is forced to either guarantee support or watch as the rug is pulled from the banks and then the treasury.


Thanks for not making it about predatory home loans.

Whatever you want to attribute the problem to, the truth is if the government had zero debt, the banking crisis would be much easier to handle, would it not? Governments that blithely borrow like there are no consequences are ill-equipped to handle major financial crises. That is not an argument for continued $1T-plus deficits here.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 May 2012, 10:47 am

Ray Jay wrote:Re the economy, I would prefer Romney over Obama (I can see that I didn't make that clear), but I'm not confident that Mitt will do this right. He's talking about increasing military spending and lowering taxes which is hard for me to imagine. I think the right answer is a grand compromise that lowers spending and rationalizes our tax system. Can Romney deliver that? Perhaps. It comes down to the same issue which is Who is Mitt Romney? What's his core. I've met the guy and I don't know.


Let me ask you this: who has actually worked with the other party--Romney or Obama?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 May 2012, 10:54 am

Doctor Fate wrote:And, you probably don't have their absurd retirement policies (I think it's 52 for many professions).
Average retirement age in Greece is higher than in Germany. Pensions are, of course, lower.

By the way, Spain's debt is lower than Germany's.


Debt as a percentage of GDP? I thought not.[/quote]You thought wrong

Germany 81.2% at end of 2011 linky
Spain 79.2% projected for 2012. linky

Not by much, but it happens to be so, for now.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 May 2012, 11:01 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:And, you probably don't have their absurd retirement policies (I think it's 52 for many professions).
Average retirement age in Greece is higher than in Germany. Pensions are, of course, lower.

By the way, Spain's debt is lower than Germany's.


Debt as a percentage of GDP? I thought not.
You thought wrong

Germany 81.2% at end of 2011 linky
Spain 79.2% projected for 2012. linky

Not by much, but it happens to be so, for now.


I guess 25% unemployment is bad, huh?

This article makes Spain seem positively solvent. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/opinion/o ... index.html

According to this, you have the retirement bit wrong.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 May 2012, 11:19 am

Not sure I have. An op-ed quoting another one showing state/offcial retirement ages is not proof of the comparitive actual retirement ages.

However, I found a link that does show the average retirement ages of many countries:Greece's is higher than Germany's. Because Germans tend to retire early while Greeks tend to retire late.

We should be careful not be take Economist editorial at face value, no?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 May 2012, 12:14 pm

danivon wrote:Not sure I have. An op-ed quoting another one showing state/offcial retirement ages is not proof of the comparitive actual retirement ages.

However, I found a link that does show the average retirement ages of many countries:Greece's is higher than Germany's. Because Germans tend to retire early while Greeks tend to retire late.

We should be careful not be take Economist editorial at face value, no?


Dunno.

That chart is for the "effective" retirement in 2000. I don't know how that may have changed or what the measure of "effective" is.

One thing is clear: Greece has relied on Germany to bail her out.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 18 May 2012, 2:15 pm

I think we should just elect Monte for president--he has it about right.I can never beat him in Diplomacy so I think he can also handle foreign policy pretty well...

The tendency of recent Republican presidents has been to be focus on reducing taxes and raising military spending. They don't seem to want to use up much political capital in reducing spending, even if they ostensibly want to do so. Democratic presidents don't reduce taxes, don't increase military spending that much and have a hard time increasing other spending because of Republican opposition.

And as Monte pointed out, Obama has done a good job of handing foreign policy and is clearly reluctant to get involved in new military adventures. It is reasonable to conclude that military spending will go down in his 2nd terms. Romney on the other hand, like Bush II and Reagan, says he will cut taves and raise military spending. He will likely be able to do that. He won't be able to cut other spending. Thus, it is very likely that the budget deficit will be worse under Romney than under Obama

Isn't it clear that we have a structural problem with our deficits that is due to two things: (1) increased military spending because of 9-11 and (2) the Bush tax cuts? So the answer to solve the budget crisis would be....get rid of the Bush tax cuts and rein in military spending! Solving the budget crisis is only hard when you (as in you Republicans) insist that not only will we not go back to the tax rate prior to the Bush Tax Cuts but we want more tax cuts. And of course we want more military spending. And Tea Party members expect to be taken seriously on the defict issue?
And of course it is Socialism for liberals to say, hmm, well if the budget was being balanced prior to the Bush Tax cuts and increased military spending, why don't go we go back to the status quo prior to 9-11 and the Bush Tax cuts? Oh, but that would be socialism if we did that.

No, Steve, the middle-class does not want hand-outs. They want a home in a safe neighborhood with good schools with their kids having an opportunity to move up. All that is being endangered by conservative policies that are shifting the wealth from the middle-class to the wealthy. It's not jealous, it's not envy, it's called fairness.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 May 2012, 5:37 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Re the economy, I would prefer Romney over Obama (I can see that I didn't make that clear), but I'm not confident that Mitt will do this right. He's talking about increasing military spending and lowering taxes which is hard for me to imagine. I think the right answer is a grand compromise that lowers spending and rationalizes our tax system. Can Romney deliver that? Perhaps. It comes down to the same issue which is Who is Mitt Romney? What's his core. I've met the guy and I don't know.


Let me ask you this: who has actually worked with the other party--Romney or Obama?


I think that's a fair point. I don't see 2nd term Obama working well with a Republican House.

If Romney wins, he will have a similar mandate as Obama did in 2008. He will have the Presidency, the House, and 50+ senators, but not a filibuster proof majority. Romney would have a mandate. But what would he have a mandate for? That will be based on his campaign. If he promises a more muscular foreign policy and tax cuts, he will have a very hard time cutting the deficit because pivoting on the bully pulpit will be too challenging. If he promises a fairer tax code (with lower rates but similar revenues), reduced social spending, and a reasonable foreign policy, then he will be able to cajole congress to do just that.

Since I'm the independent on the board, that's what I would like to see to vote for him. But the right will accuse him of etch-a-sketch. Romney is really going to have to up his game. Somehow he has to appeal to those of us in the middle without alienating the more conservative crowd.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 May 2012, 5:45 pm

Freeman:
Isn't it clear that we have a structural problem with our deficits that is due to two things: (1) increased military spending because of 9-11 and (2) the Bush tax cuts? So the answer to solve the budget crisis would be....get rid of the Bush tax cuts and rein in military spending!


I just don't agree with that. I don't think we should lower our taxes, but I'm not saying that we should raise them significantly. On 1/1/13, the top federal tax rate on dividends will be 42.6%. Dividend income is first taxed at corporate tax rates. Throw in CA's crazy tax system and you are potentially looking at combined federal and state corporate and individual tax rates of over 75%. Not on my watch!

You can't drive the country looking in the rear view mirror. We have to solve medical costs. We have to fix the tax code so that rates are lower and deductions are fewer. We have to severely reduce purposeless regulations and government spending on all sorts of ridiculous things. If we raise taxes too much, we are doomed.
Last edited by Ray Jay on 19 May 2012, 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7462
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 May 2012, 5:50 pm

If RJ is the POTUS, can I be Sec of Defense or Education? PLEASE???
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 May 2012, 3:59 am

Doctor Fate wrote:That chart is for the "effective" retirement in 2000. I don't know how that may have changed or what the measure of "effective" is.
Well, on that second part, it's defined in the report.

On the first, things may have changed over the last 10 years, but trends tend to be slow. Perhaps you can furnish us with a link to show what the changes are, rather than just relying on what you think should be the case?

One thing is clear: Greece has relied on Germany to bail her out.
Hmmm. More like German banks are relying on Germany to bail Greece out. And of course, Germany has been relying on lower exchange rates to support exports, which makes it a lot easier for them to be able to - especially when those exports are to markets they want to develop in places like... Greece.

It's not as simple as you'd like to think, Steve.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 May 2012, 7:38 am

bbauska wrote:If RJ is the POTUS, can I be Sec of Defense or Education? PLEASE???


You can be both, and even merge the two departments if you like!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 May 2012, 9:56 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:That chart is for the "effective" retirement in 2000. I don't know how that may have changed or what the measure of "effective" is.
Well, on that second part, it's defined in the report.

On the first, things may have changed over the last 10 years, but trends tend to be slow. Perhaps you can furnish us with a link to show what the changes are, rather than just relying on what you think should be the case?

One thing is clear: Greece has relied on Germany to bail her out.
Hmmm. More like German banks are relying on Germany to bail Greece out. And of course, Germany has been relying on lower exchange rates to support exports, which makes it a lot easier for them to be able to - especially when those exports are to markets they want to develop in places like... Greece.

It's not as simple as you'd like to think, Steve.


I know, it's sooo complicated! Greece's problems have nothing to do with socialism, for example, right? Just because the government sets pensions, that is not a problem, right?

Vasia Veremi may be only 28, but as a hairdresser in Athens, she is keenly aware that, under a current law that treats her job as hazardous to her health, she has the right to retire with a full pension at age 50.

“I use a hundred different chemicals every day — dyes, ammonia, you name it,” she said. “You think there’s no risk in that?”

“People should be able to retire at a decent age,” Ms. Veremi added. “We are not made to live 150 years.”

Perhaps not, but it is still difficult to explain to outsiders why the Greek government has identified at least 580 job categories deemed to be hazardous enough to merit retiring early — at age 50 for women and 55 for men.


Oh, it gets better:

According to research by Jagadeesh Gokhale, an economist at the Cato Institute in Washington, bringing Greece’s pension obligations onto its balance sheet would show that the government’s debt is in reality equal to 875 percent of its gross domestic product, which is the broadest measure of a nation’s economic output. That would be the highest debt level among the 16 nations that use the euro, and far above Greece’s official debt level of 113 percent.

Other countries have obscured their total obligations as well. In France, where the official debt level is 76 percent of economic output, total debt rises to 549 percent once all of its current pension promises are taken into account. And in Germany, the current debt level of 71.9 percent would soar to 418 percent.

Mr. Gokhale, like many other economists, says he believes that this is a more appropriate way to assess a country’s debt level because it underscores the extent to which the cost of providing for rapidly aging populations, if left unchanged, will add to already troubling debt burdens.

“You have to look ahead and see how pension expenditures are rising in comparison to the revenues needed to finance them,” he said. “It’s not just Greece; all major European countries are facing pension shortfalls. It is a very difficult challenge because it involves selling pain to current voters.”

He estimates that to fully finance future pension obligations, the average European country would need to set aside 8 percent of its economic output each year, a practical impossibility given that raising already high taxes so much would impose a crushing economic burden. . . .

In its 2009 annual report on Greece, the International Monetary Fund warned that the government’s excessive pension and health payments to the elderly would result in a debt level of 800 percent of its output by 2050 if left unchecked, similar to the figures Mr. Gokhale calculated. That is a theoretical number, of course: international creditors, who are already balking at lending Greece more money, would require changes in government programs well before Athens borrowed that much.

“The pension crisis is the biggest single test of Greece’s willingness to tackle longstanding reform,” said Kevin Featherstone, an expert on the Greek political economy at the London School of Economics. “Any meaningful reform must lead to reduced benefits for workers — the government needs to show that it can overcome union pressure.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 May 2012, 1:47 pm

Every country would have massive debt if it had to suddenly pay up front all due pensions. But that would only happen if everyone suddenly became 65 and retired, and then lived for thirty years. These numbers are entirely theoretical.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 May 2012, 3:23 pm

danivon wrote:Every country would have massive debt if it had to suddenly pay up front all due pensions. But that would only happen if everyone suddenly became 65 and retired, and then lived for thirty years. These numbers are entirely theoretical.


No one's talking about "suddenly," but they are looming. There's no denying that.

Ours is not so high, I would suspect. Well, at least with regard to our GDP. Having the government as THE source of retirements is not our issue . . . yet.