I hardly see I'm being stubborn here. Japan's GDP per capita has gone up in USD less than 5k in 20 years. The US has gone up over 9k. The Nekkei is about 1/3 of what it was 20 years ago, while the S&P is up over 400%. Japan has technically improved, but considering their debt/GDP ratio went up over 300% in that time, was it really worth the cost? I'm not saying massive gov't spending can't cause an economy grow. My problem is what happend long term and is the effect worth the price?
Lol, it's not "code" as in a secret code. I was just saying that is what price levels and inflation means. There is no secret to it. And of course China will eventually grow larger than us. They have over 3.5* as man people as us. But for China to ever have the standard of living we have, that means they would have to have a GDP over $50 trillion. Which isn't going to happen any time soon. The USA is not going anywhere, the rest of the talk is just fear mongering by bloggers. We'll be fine, China is experiencing the sweet life of capitalism.. they will be a good ally to America.
Lol, who cares about the Nekkei. That does not determine the strength of the economy. You just literally cherry pick anything to try to make your case. Their standard of living grew over 20% in the past 20 years. That's the bottom line. The Nikkei and their housing market was incredibly over inflated. It crashed and reached a normal level, they continue to have a declining population, they are mass exporters, have over a trillion dollars in our debt and other debts... They are not as "bad off" as you are trying to make them out to be.
For your theory to have any weight you have to actually find countries that are "worse" off, lol. And by worse off it doesn't mean the stock market is less. It means their standard of living has decreased.
And this is only from 2009-2010. It's grown even more since 2010. Been a tough month for you. Do you ever get sick of me making you look like an idiot?
This is why you are a kid. A punk kid who doesnt understand the real world. You say that Americans standard of living is increasing because of some modest gains in GDP per Capita?????? We are seeing the largest income disparity between rich and poor since the 1920's and we know what followed after that. Look at Median income, it hasnt been this low since the early 90's. Yes, the standard of living is increasing for the wealthiest yet declining for most.... but because the wealthy have so much more wealth yet get modest gains in per capita GDP. You live in Alaska, obviously you are insulated from the real world, but let me tell you, you are flat out wrong fratfraud. This Presidents policies have been shit, the economy is stalled, people are out of work and any gains made to income are at the top 5% everyone else is fucked. No, being this is the case, this would be the time to do something about it and start a business, become your own boss - make your own wealth. Problem is the red tape now involved (read policies of this president) is staggering and small businesses are dying on the vine more often then they even attempting to get started. Thus business isnt getting expanded thus jobs are not becoming prevalent again. Its a giant clusterfuck and you have the audacity to say that the standard of lviing is increasing for Americans? Kid, get off daddy's lap and live in the real world.... put down the fucking halo controller and get a real job down here in the states instead of some frozen fucking tundra where you are outnumbered by elk. The only thing keeping this country from a correction right now is unsustainable debt. Keep kicking the can... pay for it tomorrow. And you want to add more!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you not see yet how dumb you make yourself look? The country is teetering on the edges of another economic collapse and you are up there whistling dixie, tugging on your little schnitzel saying we need more debt and that the standard of living for Americans are increasing. ROFL
This is why you are a kid. A punk kid who doesnt understand the real world. You say that Americans standard of living is increasing because of some modest gains in GDP per Capita?????? We are seeing the largest income disparity between rich and poor since the 1920's and we know what followed after that. Look at Median income, it hasnt been this low since the early 90's. Yes, the standard of living is increasing for the wealthiest yet declining for most.... but because the wealthy have so much more wealth yet get modest gains in per capita GDP. You live in Alaska, obviously you are insulated from the real world, but let me tell you, you are flat out wrong fratfraud. This Presidents policies have been shit, the economy is stalled, people are out of work and any gains made to income are at the top 5% everyone else is fucked. No, being this is the case, this would be the time to do something about it and start a business, become your own boss - make your own wealth. Problem is the red tape now involved (read policies of this president) is staggering and small businesses are dying on the vine more often then they even attempting to get started. Thus business isnt getting expanded thus jobs are not becoming prevalent again. Its a giant clusterfuck and you have the audacity to say that the standard of lviing is increasing for Americans? Kid, get off daddy's lap and live in the real world.... put down the fucking halo controller and get a real job down here in the states instead of some frozen fucking tundra where you are outnumbered by elk. The only thing keeping this country from a correction right now is unsustainable debt. Keep kicking the can... pay for it tomorrow. And you want to add more!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you not see yet how dumb you make yourself look? The country is teetering on the edges of another economic collapse and you are up there whistling dixie, tugging on your little schnitzel saying we need more debt and that the standard of living for Americans are increasing. ROFL
100% spot on.
Pretty much everything you posted about Japan in this thread has not been as productive as America was in the past 20 years. Their standard of living has gone up 20% in 20 years, but most places around the globe have seen an increase. The question is has the rest of the world seen an increase in their debt/GDP ratio of 300%? BTW, what would Japan's unemployment rate look like if they didn't have an aging population?
You are fighting an uphill battle here. They grew, we grew, most developed nations grew. They all have debt, they all increase their debt, and NONE of them have grown using your theory. You would think that would be a telltale sign that your theory is flawed. For some reason EVERYONE uses my theory and they continue to grow... yet no one uses your theory. What a shocker. And this logical fallacy crap you keep spouting is getting old. Now you are saying they didn't grow as much as the US even though they have an incredibly high debt to gdp. You are still under the impression that more debt = more growth. I have never said that in my life. More debt "can" = more growth but is not correlated with growth... as in just accumulating tons of debt does not mean you are going to grow faster than another country. Like I said, you can't tell the whole story... you can only pick and choose a piece of data here or there and use a logical fallacy to imply it was "caused" by Govt spending. I can tell the whole story because I understand how it works. And I can tell you Japan would be much worse off with out their current debt load just like America would.
What the fuck does this have to do with debt? God you're dumb. This is a fiscal policy problem not a monetary one. And it's a problem I agree with.
You are making up your own data. You asked me to prove the standard of living in America is increasing. This is the basic economic metric to prove the standard of living of a country. What you are talking about has nothing to do with macroeconomics, it has to deal more with redistribution. You are just saying the top is taking too much and the bottom is getting too little. That is not a monetary policy problem. And to think it has to do with Obama's "policies"?? Hahahaha, you are dumb as fuck! You can't even name one policy of Obama that is causing this disparity of wealth. Because I will tell you, if Obama actually could use his policies... that gap would be closing quick. You are really dumb.
The United States will pay off over $4 trillion in maturing debt this year. Absolutely no problems, absolutely no solvency risk, absolutely no need to tax the American people to pay it off. They have done this for the past 75 years. They will never need to pay "off" the debt like you are describing. We can always pay off whoever we owe because we create the money. And it's not "creating" more money, it's just transferring money we already have in the system to whoever we owe and taking over the debt. You have not listened to me for two years on how this shit works, it's getting embarrassing. And you still talk about the "debt being due". That's a fucking laughing stock. Please explain to me when the debt will be due and we run out of money that is created from thin air!! Hahahahapay for it tomorrow. And you want to add more!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have made yourself look retarded here and you don't even know it. That's the funniest part. Is that you honestly think you know what you are talking about and I don't. Fucking hilarious! You did your job clown... you made me laugh!
First of all, most countries will grow regardless of what economic system they use. The USSR grew from 1917-1990, but that hardly means communism works. Many countries have grown using the ideas I endorse, like our own from 1800-1913, Hong Kong from 1961-present, etc. But proportionally, Japan has spent much more on stimulas over the last 20 years and seen less bang for their buck than we have.
Do you notice how over the course of the thread, you went from telling me how great Keynesianism worked in Japan, and now you're only telling me that they didn't shrink?
They grew 20%. I told you to at least pick a country that didn't grow. It had nothing to do with devaluing Keynesianism. And now you are even getting crazier by saying most countries will grow regardless of what economic system they use. That is fucking laughable and completely discredits everything you say. But you are an Austrian and Austrians are the butt of many jokes in the economic world. Our country did not use your theory in the 19th century, lol. Everytime they had a problem they resorted to Keynesianism. Now you are rewriting history. Hilarious!
And why do you keep bringing up Hong Kong. They are a small specialized city, 2% the size of the United States. Their external debt to gdp is 344%, 3 and a half times more than the US. Just because their country doesn't have large Govt debt loads compared to their GDP doesn't mean Keynesianism is "debunked", lol. Just another one of your logical fallacies.
They do grow. There is no debate that under communism the average citizen in the USSR saw their standard of living increase. If your standard for a successful economy is it grows, then you can pick pretty much anything, capitalism, fascism, socialism, even communism. And I've told you before I'm not an Austrian, but a Chicaustrian. What is hilarious is your claim that we were using Keynesianism before JMK was even born. In the 19th century when we didn't spend more than 3% of GDP outside of times of war, had no income or capital gains tax outside times of war, were on a bimetal standard, had no federal reserve, and the gov't typically didn't bail out failing business or engage in massive stimulas projects. You're right, that sounds like everything you endorse.
Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world according to the yearly ranking by the WSJ. In 1960, the per capita income in Hong Kong was 28% of that in Great Britain. By 1997, it was 136% that of GB. They got that with less gov't planning than GB, less spending than GB, and a freer economy than GB. The size of the geographic area is irrelevant.
Yea, but none of them have grown to the level that developed nations that use America's monetary system has grown. Even China is adapting our system with flying colors. So your argument that any economic systems provides growth is nonsense. And like I've said a million times, Govt spending isn't directly correlated with growth. If you have a gold standard economy, then Govt spending doesn't have the effect it has in a fiat economy. The difference between currency issuer/currency user. When you use a commodity the Govt is strapped by how much of that commodity exists. So if they spend it they have to take it. That's what you aren't getting out of this. During the 1800s there was a mass influx of gold and the industrial revolution which caused the velocity of money to go through the roof. The California Gold Rush is one of the best examples of Keynesianism there is. Tons of people risking their lives to travel across the nation to find gold. All that gold they found lead to a massive economic boom in California. That simple concept is the same concept they use today.
Hong Kong's govt does not need to spend money because most of their business is done with foreign countries that print their own money, which is why their external debt is so high. But for them to have that kind of growth someone somewhere needs to create the money for that growth to occur. In the gold standard someone somewhere had to find more gold for that growth to occur. It is very simple, either people spend more money (velocity) or you print/find more money. The same concept of finding gold is the same concept of printing money. It is mathematically the only way. Think of it this way... the Govt needs to be in debt in fiat economies because the debt is equivalent to their "gold".
And a majority of their economy deals with the global economy which requires Govts to be in debt. Like I said, this isn't magic. For growth to occur the way we calculate it anywhere in the world there is literally only two mathematical ways for it to happen. Either people spend more money or they print more money.
That is true, but then you would also have to admit that we had greater growth in the 1800s compared to what we've had over the past few decades, which is why I advocate smaller gov't. Regarding the influx of gold in the 1800s, you're right that increased economic activity, but it wasn't gov't driven, it was private sector driven. And while we're on the subject of the role precious metals had in the economy of the 1800s, we must also study what effects silver had on the economy.
Quick history lesson: Most people don't realize this, but for most of the 1800s, America was a bimetal country, and due to gov't actions, we were on a de facto silver standard until 1834. In the late 1700s, the market ratio for silver:gold was 15.5:1. The gov't decided they would have a ratio of 15:1, and Gresham's law (bad money (money that the gov't overvalues) drives out the good (money that the gov't doesn't overvalue)). In 1834, we reset the ratio to 16:1, despite the market ratio still being 15.5:1, which got us on a gold standard.
Fast forward to the years after the Civil War, due to the massive finds of silver around the world, the ratio for silver:gold was plummeting. We dumped silver officially in 1873. Unfortunately, the Bland-Allison act got us back on silver, and stipulated that in order to drive up the price of silver to help farmers and miners, the US gov't had to buy 2.5-4.5 million dollars worth of silver a month. Then in 1890, Senator John Sherman of Ohio got his Silver purchase act passed, which stipulated that in order to drive up the price of silver, which was no longer profitable to mine, the gov't had to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver a month at a 16:1 ratio, despite the fact the market ratio at that point was 30:1 or 40:1, I can't remember and I don't want to look it up. 4.5 million ounces was the majority of the silver mined in America at the time. The result was over the next few years, cheap money flooded the American economy, and due to that and other gov't meddling in the economy, like subsidizing railroads, we ended up with the Panic of 1893, considered to be the worst economic crises this country faced other than the Great Depression.
Regarding Hong Kong, someone had to build that. It was a war ravaged rock after WWII, and 50 years later, it was a thriving metropolis. The gov't didn't spend or plan much, instead allowing private investment to drive the economy, and the end result was an economic boom that greatly improved the standard of living of the ordinary person.
How can the standard of living in the US be increasing when unemployment is at records levels, household debt is at record levels, home values have tanked, food stamp usage spiked etc etc etc... i could literally list hundreds of other factors that say the quite opposite. And you post some shit about Per Capita??? How does the aggregate wealth of the entire nation present an accurate representation of the average person in an economy that you even agree has grown completely out of whack in regards to rich and poor? You defeat your own arguments based on your own submissions.
Again you miss the boat. What we have been doing for 70 years is catching up. Look at any variable you want. The truth of the matter is that this path is not sustainable and even money created out of thin air (which you agree with) comes at a price. Every time we create new dollars it comes at the expense and value of existing dollars. Nobody is saying they need to pay off the debt, what i have always said is there needs to be some discretion and debt needs to be a fraction of GDP not equal or in this case (in a year or two) surpassing GDP. Again, i speak of sustainability and here you are whistling dixie about paying off the debt. You want to talk about cutting the deficit, thats a different matter all together.
I think youre the ones who makes a fool of yourself. You dont need some online degree to understand economics, especially macroeconomics. You go out of your way to portray yourself as being well versed but in reality through your own words you are proven to be a charlatan and a fraud at every turn.
