You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is a better US Gov investment for Future - Military Spending or Infrastructure
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
.
Mschey: As for South America, nothing new in your post....looks to me like econ 101 stuff here....the old guns and butter argument.
*********
February 5, 2007
SouthAmerica: Reply to Mschey
The problem is that the current US government thinks that the world revolves only around guns and âNOâ butter.
What I am trying to say with my posting is that the Bush administration policies regarding the future of the United States is completely screwed up.
If you had a better understanding of what is really going on and its impact on the future of this country then you would not think that what I am saying it is eco 101.
It is a little more profound than that.
The members of the British Empire around the 1920âs and 1930âs also were thinking in the same way that you think about the US empire today.
Only 75 years later the UK is a shadow of its former self, and today it is not even the most important country in Europe â never mind what happened to the rest of the British Empire.
In the end the astronomical defense spending over a long period of time is what did put the British Empire out of business.
The Soviet Union pissed a large portion of its resources trying to project power around the world â and today they still have more nukes on their arsenal than the United States.
But where is the Soviet Union today?
Again, In the end the astronomical defense spending over a long period of time is what helped put the Soviet Union also out of business.
I wonder if the United States would be fighting this lost cause in Iraq if the Chinese government were not lending all this money and keep funding the United States at a very low interest rate.
Without the âChinese give awayâ the interest rate in the US would be much higher today â and the value of the US dollar would be much lower against major currencies, and so onâ¦.
If you want Eco 101 â then here it is: the defense spending during the Vietnam War years was one of the major causes of inflation in the United States during the late 1970âs and early 1980âs when the prime rate reached the 20 percent level in April of 1980.
Effective Prime Rate
Dateâ¦â¦â¦â¦Value
1980-03-04 17.25
1980-03-07 17.75
1980-03-14 18.50
1980-03-19 19.00
1980-03-28 19.50
1980-04-02 20.00
1980-04-18 19.50
1980-05-01 18.50
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
If you think that defense spending completely out of control it does not have severe future consequences to the US economy â then you should go back to school and refresh your eco 101.
.
Mschey: As for South America, nothing new in your post....looks to me like econ 101 stuff here....the old guns and butter argument.
*********
February 5, 2007
SouthAmerica: Reply to Mschey
The problem is that the current US government thinks that the world revolves only around guns and âNOâ butter.
What I am trying to say with my posting is that the Bush administration policies regarding the future of the United States is completely screwed up.
If you had a better understanding of what is really going on and its impact on the future of this country then you would not think that what I am saying it is eco 101.
It is a little more profound than that.
The members of the British Empire around the 1920âs and 1930âs also were thinking in the same way that you think about the US empire today.
Only 75 years later the UK is a shadow of its former self, and today it is not even the most important country in Europe â never mind what happened to the rest of the British Empire.
In the end the astronomical defense spending over a long period of time is what did put the British Empire out of business.
The Soviet Union pissed a large portion of its resources trying to project power around the world â and today they still have more nukes on their arsenal than the United States.
But where is the Soviet Union today?
Again, In the end the astronomical defense spending over a long period of time is what helped put the Soviet Union also out of business.
I wonder if the United States would be fighting this lost cause in Iraq if the Chinese government were not lending all this money and keep funding the United States at a very low interest rate.
Without the âChinese give awayâ the interest rate in the US would be much higher today â and the value of the US dollar would be much lower against major currencies, and so onâ¦.
If you want Eco 101 â then here it is: the defense spending during the Vietnam War years was one of the major causes of inflation in the United States during the late 1970âs and early 1980âs when the prime rate reached the 20 percent level in April of 1980.
Effective Prime Rate
Dateâ¦â¦â¦â¦Value
1980-03-04 17.25
1980-03-07 17.75
1980-03-14 18.50
1980-03-19 19.00
1980-03-28 19.50
1980-04-02 20.00
1980-04-18 19.50
1980-05-01 18.50
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
If you think that defense spending completely out of control it does not have severe future consequences to the US economy â then you should go back to school and refresh your eco 101.
.
'In the end the astronomical defense spending over a long period of time is what did put the British Empire out of business.'
Do not know exactly what caused the fall of British empire, but do tend to agree that US wastes a lot of money in the defense spending that is not needed. After 1991, US had a good chance to cut its defense budget and bring its economic sheets into some sort of balance but they chose not to go that route. Clinton did cut some spending cuts but nothing significant.
On the otherhand, US economic engine is not in bad shape, but its balance sheets are. Jobs are on rise and GNP is also growing well. However, they can and will devalue the dollar and make Chinese, Japanese, UK, Dutch pay a big portion of their debt. Wonder if that was the gameplan all along since the Reagan times?
Do not know exactly what caused the fall of British empire, but do tend to agree that US wastes a lot of money in the defense spending that is not needed. After 1991, US had a good chance to cut its defense budget and bring its economic sheets into some sort of balance but they chose not to go that route. Clinton did cut some spending cuts but nothing significant.
On the otherhand, US economic engine is not in bad shape, but its balance sheets are. Jobs are on rise and GNP is also growing well. However, they can and will devalue the dollar and make Chinese, Japanese, UK, Dutch pay a big portion of their debt. Wonder if that was the gameplan all along since the Reagan times?
'You have concept completely backwards'
how come? these nations hold hundreds of billions of US debt which is a mere guarantee on paper. US dollar loses 25% purchasing power that means 25% of the debt has been forgiven or washed out. In Russia the currency devaluation resulted in people losing their life savings in banks with garbage bags full of currency good only to buy knock off raybans.
how come? these nations hold hundreds of billions of US debt which is a mere guarantee on paper. US dollar loses 25% purchasing power that means 25% of the debt has been forgiven or washed out. In Russia the currency devaluation resulted in people losing their life savings in banks with garbage bags full of currency good only to buy knock off raybans.
Quote from toc:
'You have concept completely backwards'
how come? these nations hold hundreds of billions of US debt which is a mere guarantee on paper. US dollar loses 25% purchasing power that means 25% of the debt has been forgiven or washed out. In Russia the currency devaluation resulted in people losing their life savings in banks with garbage bags full of currency good only to buy knock off raybans.
The RUB and the ARS for that matter are limited convertibles.
THE USD is the global reserve currency used to purchase commodities.
It doesn't really matter if the USD is a global reserve currency, it is a fiat currency and so it is subject to inflationary risks just like any other fiat currency. Your argument would be valid only if the value of the USD was based [fixed] on the value of those commodities [in someway similar to the gold standard] ...Quote from fearless9:
The RUB and the ARS for that matter are limited convertibles.
THE USD is the global reserve currency used to purchase commodities.
As long as you have a fiat currency the FED can devaluate it as it pleases, and it fact they do it every day. With every time a new emission coming out of the FED every dollar is worth a little less. Since the newly emitted dollars are not backed by any asset but they are rather a counterfeit.
Today the USD is worth less than 1/20th of its 1950 value. Back then $35 USD = one ounce of gold... today, well... check the charts...
Quote from eusdaiki:
It doesn't really matter if the USD is a global reserve currency, it is a fiat currency and so it is subject to inflationary risks just like any other fiat currency. Your argument would be valid only if the value of the USD was based [fixed] on the value of those commodities [in someway similar to the gold standard] ...
As long as you have a fiat currency the FED can devaluate it as it pleases, and it fact they do it every day. With every time a new emission coming out of the FED every dollar is worth a little less. Since the newly emitted dollars are not backed by any asset but they are rather a counterfeit.
Today the USD is worth less than 1/20th of its 1950 value. Back then $35 USD = one ounce of gold... today, well... check the charts...
Good point.
What about the other currencies.
Are you implying they are not fiat as well.
In which case the USD has a big big problem.
Otherwise the dollar flight finds it's originals in other trenches.