ADVERTISEMENT

Debt

He’s a socialist and mistakenly believes governments can allocate capital better than free markets. I did like all his other suggestions.
you know he was run out of texas. speaking of both, incidentally and coincidentally, my texan sent me a text of what he was doing this past weekend.

building a ......................................................................... pergola
 
He’s a socialist and mistakenly thinks governments can allocate capital better than free markets. I did like all his other suggestions.
Applying the term "free market" to heirs misunderstands what it means and how it operates. Human emotion and irrationality govern there, but with the cost of such irrationality not borne by the grantor. It's a kind of (analagous to, not exact) externality of our tribal psychology (and yes, I just made that up!).
 
you know he was run out of texas. speaking of both, incidentally and coincidentally, my texan sent me a text of what he was doing this past weekend.

building a ......................................................................... pergola
I actually developed a lot of these ideas drinking in bars throughout Austin, trying to get a rise out of my Texas drinking buddies and arguing throughout the night. Drunken policy debates were fun, especially in the pre-internet age, when you could just make up stats or references and insist they were true.
 
I actually developed a lot of these ideas drinking in bars throughout Austin, trying to get a rise out of my Texas drinking buddies and arguing throughout the night. Drunken policy debates were fun, especially in the pre-internet age, when you could just make up stats or references and insist they were true.

 
  • Love
Reactions: BradStevens
I agree with Luke’s prediction below with US Treasuries in the future. It’s also why I am so bullish on Bitcoin. They’re going to get swapped out for Gold and Bitcoin.


“Foreign direct investment” ….over 95% goes toward purchasing existing assets.


Is borrowing to invest healthy? I don’t know. I don’t think that is a great defense for budget deficits. What are the future generations getting?



We are borrowing to “fuel consumption”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
Applying the term "free market" to heirs misunderstands what it means and how it operates. Human emotion and irrationality govern there, but with the cost of such irrationality not borne by the grantor. It's a kind of (analagous to, not exact) externality of our tribal psychology (and yes, I just made that up!).
Taking all morality out of it and I’ll use an extreme example. I’d rather give the money away to a bunch of alcoholics and degens of your choosing. They’d spend it recklessly, but eventually the capital would be better allocated than what the government did with it. Governments unfortunately get to continue misallocating capital through debt. They can’t fail (or takes decades) and we have to live with the inflation….aka theft of are most important resource, time.
 
Taking all morality out of it and I’ll use an extreme example. I’d rather give the money away to a bunch of alcoholics and degens of your choosing. They’d spend it recklessly, but eventually the capital would be better allocated than what the government did with it. Governments unfortunately get to continue misallocating capital through debt. They can’t fail (or takes decades) and we have to live with the inflation….aka theft of are most important resource, time.
Government allocation sucks. I cede the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
One thing I don’t understand about the trade deficit.

If we buy a computer chip from Taiwan for $100 and sell them some wheat for $50, do we have a trade deficit of $50 from that transaction? Isn’t the net dollar negative offset by the value of the computer chip? If we leverage chip to produce value, is there a deficit at all?
Consuming cheap Chinese goods is only to our advantage (in the long run) if China is exchanging those goods for our goods where we have a comparative advantage.

My understanding (which is probably wrong) is that China’s cost advantage is due to “suppressed consumption and industrial subsidies”.

We need to see savings and investment in America. Not China
 
True but if you study trickle down economy you’ll note a strong pattern from the GOP- no fiscal solvency, we’ve lost our way!
One issue I think about is the Social Security Trust Fund. It has been raided for years. I am proud that my great grandfather saw this coming. When they were talking about Social Security he went around Washington IN to tell people, "These SOB's say they are going to put this money away for this program, but they won't. They will take our money and spend it".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark
Trump gave us damn near 8 trillion in debt while telling us it was the “greatest economy.” We are truly screwed
How much did Obama put on there? How much has Biden put on there? We as American citizens can't cherry pick. All must be held accountable which would be the House,Senate, and Presidents who are not fiscally responsible. What we should have done in the 80's was pass a balanced budget amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
Consuming cheap Chinese goods is only to our advantage (in the long run) if China is exchanging those goods for our goods where we have a comparative advantage.

My understanding (which is probably wrong) is that China’s cost advantage is due to “suppressed consumption and industrial subsidies”.

We need to see savings and investment in America. Not China
Don't we benefit by paying less for our goods than we would otherwise? The money saved can then be used to buy other things or save?

Friedman thought trade deficits a good sign:

 
Whose ox gets gored?

Old People (SS, Medicare)
Poor People (Medicaid, SNAP, tax credits, etc)
Veterans/Military (Defense, military pensions/retirement)

Take aware all discretionary non military spending and we're still in a massive hole ever year.

Or we could, of couse, raise taxes.


Don’t forget farm and big oil subsidies. Only way to be fair is to slash every government program by the same percentage including my SS and Medicare. That’s not possible because everyone has something to lose and the public won’t stand for that. I have zero problem with raising taxes as long as it’s done fairly ie the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. I’ve know many who are extremely wealthy and pay little even in my own family. And they think it’s something to be proud of. While the rest of us in the middle class and below pay the bulk of the taxes because the tax laws were written by the wealthy for the wealthy. My wife and I didn’t get wealthier with the Republican tax cuts a few years ago. But their buddies sure did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU and Indyhorn
Don’t forget farm and big oil subsidies. Only way to be fair is to slash every government program by the same percentage including my SS and Medicare. That’s not possible because everyone has something to lose and the public won’t stand for that. I have zero problem with raising taxes as long as it’s done fairly ie the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. I’ve know many who are extremely wealthy and pay little even in my own family. And they think it’s something to be proud of. While the rest of us in the middle class and below pay the bulk of the taxes because the tax laws were written by the wealthy for the wealthy. My wife and I didn’t get wealthier with the Republican tax cuts a few years ago. But their buddies sure did.
 
Notice that total share of income taxes paid line. Bottom 50% is 87.7 where as the top 1% is 45.8. I noticed. Did you get a stiffy when that tax cut passed? I’m heavily in favor of cutting spending but Congress won’t ever do it because they all have their hand in the pie. And they like how it tastes. They will cut everyone else’s programs but not their favorites.
 
Everywhere Lars. I would gradually shrink the size of our expenditures across the board including defense spending

Across the board. I hate cori bush but I’m not picking on her here but using as one tiny example of just one rep on community projects. At least half of this is bullshit - bc it’s unnecessary, bc it won’t work, bc funding from other sources is available. This is a drop in the ocean but if we are ever going to get lean this shit adds up.


But this is sort of interesting

Because we have elections every two years it’s going to take some kind of cataclysmic event for any change to occur.
 
Don't we benefit by paying less for our goods than we would otherwise? The money saved can then be used to buy other things or save?

Friedman thought trade deficits a good sign:

I think it’s a balancing act.

To close the deficit we have to:
1. Cut spending
And/or
2. Increase taxes

In my mind…those would lower private savings.

What happens if we:

1. Close the budget deficit
2. Stop issuing new bonds
3. Do not take any action to rebalance trade

I don’t know.


I think our industrial capacity would continue to decline due to “trade abuses and unfair competition”.


End up with “less innovation”. Probably slower productivity.


End up with fewer “quality jobs”. Probably more inequality ( I love that word). Which becomes destabilizing. Also slower growth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
I think it’s a balancing act.

To close the deficit we have to:
1. Cut spending
And/or
2. Increase taxes

In my mind…those would lower private savings.

What happens if we:

1. Close the budget deficit
2. Stop issuing new bonds
3. Do not take any action to rebalance trade

I don’t know.


I think our industrial capacity would continue to decline due to “trade abuses and unfair competition”.


End up with “less innovation”. Probably slower productivity.


End up with fewer “quality jobs”. Probably more inequality ( I love that word). Which becomes destabilizing. Also slower growth?
Technically, we don't have to raise tax rates, we have to raise tax revenues. Grow the pie is an option.

Maybe the U.S. should return to good old-fashioned plundering? Conquer or colonize some natural resource rich places that are suffering due to poor economics and leadership and turn them into economic dynamos. Cuba and Venezuala would make good targets.
 
Technically, we don't have to raise tax rates, we have to raise tax revenues. Grow the pie is an option.

Maybe the U.S. should return to good old-fashioned plundering? Conquer or colonize some natural resource rich places that are suffering due to poor economics and leadership and turn them into economic dynamos. Cuba and Venezuala would make good targets.
Grow the pie is why I don't think we need drastic action. 3% growth per year will catch up if we can hold expenses, maybe small cuts. Social Security is an entirely different question. We need fewer expenses and increased revenue.
 
Technically, we don't have to raise tax rates, we have to raise tax revenues. Grow the pie is an option.

Maybe the U.S. should return to good old-fashioned plundering? Conquer or colonize some natural resource rich places that are suffering due to poor economics and leadership and turn them into economic dynamos. Cuba and Venezuala would make good targets.
Look at the semiconductor industry. Where were we at the beginning and where are we now?

Good chance that is directly related to our trade deficits. Leads to savings and investments for China.
 
Grow the pie is why I don't think we need drastic action. 3% growth per year will catch up if we can hold expenses, maybe small cuts. Social Security is an entirely different question. We need fewer expenses and increased revenue.
Cool. I'll mark you down as a "yes" for conquering other nations. :)

We can make you Territorial Governor of Cuba, if you like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312
Technically, we don't have to raise tax rates, we have to raise tax revenues. Grow the pie is an option.

Maybe the U.S. should return to good old-fashioned plundering? Conquer or colonize some natural resource rich places that are suffering due to poor economics and leadership and turn them into economic dynamos. Cuba and Venezuala would make good targets.
Or, maybe get everyone to pay their fair share. Another solution that would never pass would be a flat tax on all but the poorest. Never in a million years would that pass. Imagine all the special interest screaming along with the schools that offer accounting. Much less need for those guys when your short form is really a short form.
When Warren Buffet says he pays less in Federal Income Tax than his secretary you know there’s a problem. Unfortunately, any and all solutions from our cheap seats are to simplistic and we really have no idea of all the downstream effects. But nice to dream.
 
I think it’s a balancing act.

To close the deficit we have to:
1. Cut spending
And/or
2. Increase taxes

In my mind…those would lower private savings.

What happens if we:

1. Close the budget deficit
2. Stop issuing new bonds
3. Do not take any action to rebalance trade

I don’t know.


I think our industrial capacity would continue to decline due to “trade abuses and unfair competition”.


End up with “less innovation”. Probably slower productivity.


End up with fewer “quality jobs”. Probably more inequality ( I love that word). Which becomes destabilizing. Also slower growth?
Your statement that it’s a balancing act is correct. And that’s why a solution could never be found. Congress doesn’t even know how to spell the word.
 
Grow the pie is why I don't think we need drastic action. 3% growth per year will catch up if we can hold expenses, maybe small cuts. Social Security is an entirely different question. We need fewer expenses and increased revenue.
I hope that some heartless nut doesn't decide that few expenses means cutting people off from medicine so they die. I would vote for raising the retirement age over that. So Grandpa has to work five more yrs. At least he gets to live.
 
Dude, pay attention: that cataclysm has already occurred.

First, they came for the crab legs, and I did not speak out because I do not eat crab legs.

Then they came for the fried chicken...

Nuclear Bomb Explosion GIF
 
I think it’s a balancing act.

To close the deficit we have to:
1. Cut spending
And/or
2. Increase taxes

In my mind…those would lower private savings.

What happens if we:

1. Close the budget deficit
2. Stop issuing new bonds
3. Do not take any action to rebalance trade

I don’t know.


I think our industrial capacity would continue to decline due to “trade abuses and unfair competition”.


End up with “less innovation”. Probably slower productivity.


End up with fewer “quality jobs”. Probably more inequality ( I love that word). Which becomes destabilizing. Also slower growth?
Good post. Have no idea on the answers to your questions.

I'm just finding it really odd watching the former party of free trade and Milton Friedman now touting ending the trade deficits, tariffs, etc. I know the Dems aren't going to defend Friedman's ideas. So are they now dead (politically) in this country?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT