Those Boring Politics
I saw it fitting that, because I debunked a graph depicting Reagan as increasing the debt much more than Obama or Bush with a follow up, that I debunk this equally horrendous picture as well.
Firstly, let’s state the obvious: The debt at the end of 2008 was not $6.3 trillion. It was, in fact, $11.9 trillion. Secondly, let’s note that this picture only considers nominal values. What was Washington’s end-term debt in real dollars?
And Adams’? Jefferson’s? Madison’s? Monroe’s? Q. Adams? Jackson’s? Van Buren’s?! The list goes on and on. To the author of this post: 18th and 19th century dollars are much much different than 2010 dollars. I started to put all of these numbers into 2010 dollars. And let me tell you, it was the longest most monotonous thing I’ve ever done. I stopped calculating after the value of the first 43 Presidents outweighed the false number of $6.5 trillion. I was in the 1900’s when this happened.
Sadly I lost the exact numbers but please, all of you be my guest and do exactly as I did.
I don’t even feel bad for not putting the numbers here. At least the picture regarding Reagan’s debt required some brainpower. This should be a pretty simple thing to think about (especially considering the base numbers are fabricated as is).

I saw it fitting that, because I debunked a graph depicting Reagan as increasing the debt much more than Obama or Bush with a follow up, that I debunk this equally horrendous picture as well.

Firstly, let’s state the obvious: The debt at the end of 2008 was not $6.3 trillion. It was, in fact, $11.9 trillion. Secondly, let’s note that this picture only considers nominal values. What was Washington’s end-term debt in real dollars?

And Adams’? Jefferson’s? Madison’s? Monroe’s? Q. Adams? Jackson’s? Van Buren’s?! The list goes on and on. To the author of this post: 18th and 19th century dollars are much much different than 2010 dollars. I started to put all of these numbers into 2010 dollars. And let me tell you, it was the longest most monotonous thing I’ve ever done. I stopped calculating after the value of the first 43 Presidents outweighed the false number of $6.5 trillion. I was in the 1900’s when this happened.

Sadly I lost the exact numbers but please, all of you be my guest and do exactly as I did.

I don’t even feel bad for not putting the numbers here. At least the picture regarding Reagan’s debt required some brainpower. This should be a pretty simple thing to think about (especially considering the base numbers are fabricated as is).

Fiat Money is False Money and Leads to Failure

It’s obviously no mystery that the only reason the U.S. Dollar, and most of the world’s currencies, have any value is because the central banks and governments say it does. After we left the gold standard, there was no commodity to back the money or regulate the money supply.

Now, it was no mistake that we left the gold standard. As our economy would continue to grow and grow, the money supply would not grow to accommodate. Larger amounts of transactions would be done with the same money supply. This leads to deflation. Deflation obviously ruins an economy. 

Sidenote: Deflation is NOT deleveraging. Those are two different things entirely. Deleveraging is the common viewpoint of deflation: when prices of goods fall. Deflation is entirely different.

The Federal Reserve created the fiat money system. This monetary system is tied to no commodity and provides floating exchange rates. While floating exchange rates is a plus for foreign trade, it is only a plus when the Federal Reserve (or any central bank) is responsible. When the Fed prints money like crazy, the value of our currency will decrease. It’s like any good: when supply increases, value is lost.

The bond bubble is fueled by this. 

Now let me explain. The Fed created the fiat money system so the public sector could keep the market regulated as it saw fit; it tried to do what was in the well-being of the people. The middle-class of America was created by the ability to finance purchases with loans, mortgages, etc. Interest rates to the debtors was what mattered. The only reason the middle-class was able to be built the way it was was due to low interest rates. These same low interest rates were artificially created by the government.

Foreign countries would buy our bonds (IOUs of sorts) and wait for us to repay. Well, the way we would repay was through the private sector. The money given to us by others, like China, buying our debt went to keeping all interest rates low so people could finance and save. The microeconomy would adapt and spend more on foreign goods. These foreign goods would create huge revenue for the countries buying our debt. So with the money cycling back to them, they re-buy debt.

Bonds, the debt certificates, have maturities so that huge amounts of interest do not accumulate. Mostly they have long-term (30-year) maturities, but a lot of the times they have only 5 year maturities. The maturities are the set dates of when we must pay the debt back by.

Well as investing in our currency increased, we could keep fueling the debt-fueled economies. But to make payments, the Fed realized they could printtheir way out. They eventually had to with the short-term maturities. This was horrible for the economy. Since leaving the gold-standard, the dollar has lost near 98% of its purchasing power. $25,000 in 1929 would be over $300,000 today. We ruined the dollar.

But here is where this system falls further: other countries are decreasing investment in our currency and increasing in others (such as the Rupee). So as our dollar loses value from printing and our debt increases, our need to sell off bonds increases. But less are being bought. Foreign countries can’t keep up with our expenditures on everything. On top of the decrease in investment, structural deficits sky-rocketed. This is shown in the figure below:

Now with an increase in the deficit, a greater issuance of bonds must be met. Foreign countries did buy more securities, but not enough. See the below chart (link is here if it’s too small):

We can see investment in our debt go up a few hundred billion. Now compare that number to the $1.6 trillion budget deficit. There is no comparing. Again, they can’t keep up. And the fact that investment is occurring short-term rather than long-term expresses their doubt about us. They’re just holding money with us instead of investing; they don’t see a prospering nation anymore. And again, with the excess of printing and lack of investment, we’re heading down hill. But what will come?

A huge increase in interest rates and massive inflation. Floating exchange rates, because of irresponsibility, made our dollar fall entirely. The bond bubble is bursting. And the only way we fueled this failure was fiat money.

Fiat money and the government doing what it saw to be in the best interests of the people led to this, and we’re going to have to help ourselves when the huge inflation comes. The fiat system in America needs to end; we again need commodity back currency. And it needs to be a commodity that can expand with the economy. 

A better possible solution? Competing Currencies.

$1.8trillion dollars in 1980 would be worth $3.26 trillion today... Obama also has to deal with EXTREMELY bad financial decisions made by Bush also, so instead of doing the Obama hate thing everyone's loving currently, you might want to reassess your stance

You really are disproving your point. 

1) The dollar amount was 1989. So let’s fix that mistake there. You weren’t off by much, though. Today it would be worth $3.12 trillion.

2) Reagan increased the debt by $3.12 trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it more than that in under 4 years. 

3) What extremely bad financial decisions did Bush make that Obama didn’t make more of? Continued subsidies, continued war, more bailouts. It’s not making sense. Obama has been enacting the same fiscal policies as Bush (aside from pushing through his healthcare plan).

Also, I already established that these were nominal values. If you go back and read my previous post, you’ll notice I also posted each president’s final debt-to-GDP-ratio increases. Using that form, nominal values are neutral. Reagan increased the debt-to-GDP-ratio by 14.9%, Obama increased his (in under 4 years) by 24.6%

thoseboringpolitics:

After S&P announced the credit down rating, we saw the plunge of the three major stock indexes of the US. It has been declared the worst market plunge since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and it’s only been one day of trading. 

S&P stated that the downgrade was due to a severe lack in spending cuts from the US. We must remember our spending habits have been basically the same in the past few decades, and that it’s that behavior which has drowned us in debt as well as the behavior that has removed us from the AAA credit rating. With no action from Washington to make more cuts, what’s likely to happen?

Well, watch the markets. They’re sure to plummet more for a new recession coming ahead. Then watch out for spending. With spending climbing and climbing, we’re heading for a new need for a debt ceiling increase in a few years time (keeping in consideration our budget deficit). Which means this whole situation will be a repeat, which could, again, lead to another downgrade. 

Then we surely must bear in mind the actions of the Federal Reserve, which has brought us detrimental amounts of inflation that is perhaps only two or three quarters away. Surely this behavior will screw our currency as well as our spending and budgets, leading to more market downturns. Even around the world, other markets take dips. We are observing what is now the beginning of the end of our American empire and its habits.

Reblogging for the followers who Anon-bombed my inbox saying that I was an idiot because the markets recovered the following few days. Do you see what happened today? Dropped 430 points so far. I can’t wait to see August’s job report! This kind of mess is only really going to speed up the bust of the Student Loans bubble.

The central bank on Tuesday took the unprecedented step of promising it would keep interest rates near zero for a set period of time — at least until 2013 — and said it was exploring other options to support a flagging recovery.

If economic growth slows further and the 9.1 percent jobless rate remains elevated, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke seems likely to act despite the objections of some of his colleagues.

“We now see a greater-than-even chance that (the Fed) will resume quantitative easing later this year or in early 2012,” Goldman Sachs analysts said in a research note. “The committee would probably ease policy further if its economic forecast converged to our own, more downbeat view.”

Well it’s a shame, truly a shame. We still have about 2 or 3 quarters until the inflation from QE1 and QE2 catches up with our economy, and now we still have another Quantitative Easing up ahead. Inflation is already apparent. Gold broke $1800 today, and it isn’t really going down; it’s certainly a reflection on the money printers.

It’s as if no one learns from history. The Weimar Republic printed money to pay off its debts too (which Bernanke is considering big time) and their currency went straight to hell. Our spending is is over the top and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has plummeted about 700 points in the aggregate over the last 3 days. In response to that, Bernanke is keeping interest rates at about 0% for an announced period of years. 

Can anyone say credit inflation? With the market plummeting, over-expansion of credit (fueling our next bubble), and our coming near-hyperinflation, there is no way these issues can be fixed. Unemployment will, with no doubt, rise. The economy is on fire and the Federal Reserve is spraying it with gasoline. 

It’s funny, Timmy Geithner and the rest of Obama’s cabinet criticize the validity of S&P only after their own administration is downgraded. But when everyone else’s credit ratings were changing, it was perfectly fine. 

I personally think it’s just the top dogs in the US getting offended and taking a defensive stance, much like a child would in a name-calling argument. What will be the response by these same people if the credit rating goes back up? That their validity is restored and that any past critiques no longer apply? Probably. 

It’s best not the listen to these critics, since they’re at the top of the damaged system. Some claim S&P did it for personal benefit, but if anyone has noticed, the S&P stock index also fell because of their announcement that the US credit rating has dropped. It’s doubtful they could see anything positive for themselves coming out of this. The simple truth is this: the government’s spending has simply gotten out of hand.

After S&P announced the credit down rating, we saw the plunge of the three major stock indexes of the US. It has been declared the worst market plunge since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and it’s only been one day of trading. 

S&P stated that the downgrade was due to a severe lack in spending cuts from the US. We must remember our spending habits have been basically the same in the past few decades, and that it’s that behavior which has drowned us in debt as well as the behavior that has removed us from the AAA credit rating. With no action from Washington to make more cuts, what’s likely to happen?

Well, watch the markets. They’re sure to plummet more for a new recession coming ahead. Then watch out for spending. With spending climbing and climbing, we’re heading for a new need for a debt ceiling increase in a few years time (keeping in consideration our budget deficit). Which means this whole situation will be a repeat, which could, again, lead to another downgrade. 

Then we surely must bear in mind the actions of the Federal Reserve, which has brought us detrimental amounts of inflation that is perhaps only two or three quarters away. Surely this behavior will screw our currency as well as our spending and budgets, leading to more market downturns. Even around the world, other markets take dips. We are observing what is now the beginning of the end of our American empire and its habits.

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

Talks about the Debt Ceiling have found its way to talks of tax hikes as a remedy to possibly defaulting on the U.S. debt. Republicans have a huge problem with this, however. And rightly so. Other than the fact that it simply won’t pass (because who likes raising taxes that much?), the damages to the economy, as well as other sources of revenue for the government, would be pretty bad.

Let’s take, for instance, taxes on business. It’s common knowledge that businesses are taxed based on profit. So suppose we give tax hikes to some people based on their income. People now have less money to buy whatever goods they would otherwise buy. Businesses are having less and less profit as a result to a lack in demand. Not only does this not allow the business to reinvest in themselves by expanding, it diminishes the taxes given to government by these businesses. 

In addition to less government revenue and less breathing room for businesses, the lack of aggregate demand for goods reduces huge revenues from sales taxes. It also would force businesses to lay off workers as a result of the lack of demand. As unemployment rises, less people are paying any income tax, let alone paying sales taxes. What is a result of less government revenue? Higher deficits. The fact is that raising taxes is really only going to hurt the economy as a whole, and it won’t at all help fund the monster debt we’ve accumulated. 

President Bushama

I’ve been reading on a lot of posts lately the huge disdain for all of the Republican candidates (which is understandable, seeing that most of them really can’t seem to understand the idea of personal liberties) and, consequently, a huge support for Barack Obama. These bloggers, at the same time, ridicule President Bush and his policies. Again, I agree that George W. Bush was a very bad President. But what are the true differences between Obama and Bush?

Some new legislation came about, sure. Such as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the ratification of START. But the similarities truly outweigh the differences. Let’s run down a short list.

And this is just a short list of what is practically Bush’s third term. So to say you love Obama and hate Bush and Bush-esque Republicans is ignorant to facts. It’s equally as ignorant to have loved Bush and hate Obama. Look at the similarities and realize that the policies have changed little.