OT: So the debt grows…

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ltokuda]One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.[/quote]

You’re likely correct, as China started to see rampant inflation as of a few weeks ago, with everyday food prices increasing as much as 20, 30 or even over 100%. It was all over the news there. China IS paying for the economic sins of the US.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]My point was that financial market prices shouldn’t ever be used in an attempt to “prove” any macroeconomic statement, because financial markets are often wrong.[/quote]

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?

[quote]As for people paying “a lot” for government bonds: rates are at multi-generational lows, so it really isn’t debatable that people are, relatively speaking, paying a lot.[/quote]

Historical data is important – I’m a believer that prices eventually return to the mean.

The reversion part is almost a no-brainier. It’s the “eventually” part that’s hard. The timing matters. The argument that yields will go up because of government money printing will be correct – but when?

Inflation may not come for a decade or more, and we may see some deflation before we see the the inflation.

When I used the word “relative,” I meant market prices relative to other alternatives. Sure, prices on 10 year notes may be high by historical measures, but for an the investor with a 10 year time frame, they still may be a the “right” choice, relative to any other alternative.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]My point was that financial market prices shouldn’t ever be used in an attempt to “prove” any macroeconomic statement, because financial markets are often wrong.[/quote]

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?

[quote]As for people paying “a lot” for government bonds: rates are at multi-generational lows, so it really isn’t debatable that people are, relatively speaking, paying a lot.[/quote]

Historical data is important – I’m a believer that prices eventually return to the mean.

The reversion part is almost a no-brainier. It’s the “eventually” part that’s hard. The timing matters. The argument that yields will go up because of government money printing will be correct – but when?

Inflation may not come for a decade or more, and we may see some deflation before we see the the inflation.

When I used the word “relative,” I meant market prices relative to other alternatives. Sure, prices on 10 year notes may be high by historical measures, but for an the investor with a 10 year time frame, they still may be a the “right” choice, relative to any other alternative.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]My point was that financial market prices shouldn’t ever be used in an attempt to “prove” any macroeconomic statement, because financial markets are often wrong.[/quote]

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?

[quote]As for people paying “a lot” for government bonds: rates are at multi-generational lows, so it really isn’t debatable that people are, relatively speaking, paying a lot.[/quote]

Historical data is important – I’m a believer that prices eventually return to the mean.

The reversion part is almost a no-brainier. It’s the “eventually” part that’s hard. The timing matters. The argument that yields will go up because of government money printing will be correct – but when?

Inflation may not come for a decade or more, and we may see some deflation before we see the the inflation.

When I used the word “relative,” I meant market prices relative to other alternatives. Sure, prices on 10 year notes may be high by historical measures, but for an the investor with a 10 year time frame, they still may be a the “right” choice, relative to any other alternative.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]My point was that financial market prices shouldn’t ever be used in an attempt to “prove” any macroeconomic statement, because financial markets are often wrong.[/quote]

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?

[quote]As for people paying “a lot” for government bonds: rates are at multi-generational lows, so it really isn’t debatable that people are, relatively speaking, paying a lot.[/quote]

Historical data is important – I’m a believer that prices eventually return to the mean.

The reversion part is almost a no-brainier. It’s the “eventually” part that’s hard. The timing matters. The argument that yields will go up because of government money printing will be correct – but when?

Inflation may not come for a decade or more, and we may see some deflation before we see the the inflation.

When I used the word “relative,” I meant market prices relative to other alternatives. Sure, prices on 10 year notes may be high by historical measures, but for an the investor with a 10 year time frame, they still may be a the “right” choice, relative to any other alternative.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]My point was that financial market prices shouldn’t ever be used in an attempt to “prove” any macroeconomic statement, because financial markets are often wrong.[/quote]

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?

[quote]As for people paying “a lot” for government bonds: rates are at multi-generational lows, so it really isn’t debatable that people are, relatively speaking, paying a lot.[/quote]

Historical data is important – I’m a believer that prices eventually return to the mean.

The reversion part is almost a no-brainier. It’s the “eventually” part that’s hard. The timing matters. The argument that yields will go up because of government money printing will be correct – but when?

Inflation may not come for a decade or more, and we may see some deflation before we see the the inflation.

When I used the word “relative,” I meant market prices relative to other alternatives. Sure, prices on 10 year notes may be high by historical measures, but for an the investor with a 10 year time frame, they still may be a the “right” choice, relative to any other alternative.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?
[/quote]

Just because something is a piece of data doesn’t mean that it is a valid or relevant piece of data.

My entire point has been that, because huge financial market mispricings occur so frequently, citing current financial market prices is never valid proof of any fundamental or macroeconomic claim.

I agree with the rest of your post but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?
[/quote]

Just because something is a piece of data doesn’t mean that it is a valid or relevant piece of data.

My entire point has been that, because huge financial market mispricings occur so frequently, citing current financial market prices is never valid proof of any fundamental or macroeconomic claim.

I agree with the rest of your post but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?
[/quote]

Just because something is a piece of data doesn’t mean that it is a valid or relevant piece of data.

My entire point has been that, because huge financial market mispricings occur so frequently, citing current financial market prices is never valid proof of any fundamental or macroeconomic claim.

I agree with the rest of your post but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?
[/quote]

Just because something is a piece of data doesn’t mean that it is a valid or relevant piece of data.

My entire point has been that, because huge financial market mispricings occur so frequently, citing current financial market prices is never valid proof of any fundamental or macroeconomic claim.

I agree with the rest of your post but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I don’t see current market prices as “right” or “wrong” with regard to macroeconomics – they are just a data point. What can we use to “prove” anything, except data?
[/quote]

Just because something is a piece of data doesn’t mean that it is a valid or relevant piece of data.

My entire point has been that, because huge financial market mispricings occur so frequently, citing current financial market prices is never valid proof of any fundamental or macroeconomic claim.

I agree with the rest of your post but it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.[/quote]

Fantastic post, pri_dk.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.[/quote]

Fantastic post, pri_dk.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.[/quote]

Fantastic post, pri_dk.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.[/quote]

Fantastic post, pri_dk.

[Author]

Posts