7 ms·

I have great fears that the economy over the next 10 years of my life will be stagnation. The Chinese debt is something the world has known, to continue to acc

I have great fears that the economy over the next 10 years of my life will be stagnation. The Chinese debt is something the world has known, to continue to accept the debt is the risk for the taker. The worry is that this will ruin companies and the employees that work for them. It should be obvious how this cascades and affects the common person. I also have concerns about the US economy given our comfort level with the growing debt.

jandrese 8y ago
One of the first things Trump did in office was set us up for a massive debt crisis in a couple of years. Same thing George W. Bush did in fact. It worked perfectly, Obama was harshly criticized for running such a massive deficit, and the Congress took the opportunity to sign pledges and cut social programs and blame the president. They generated a ton of anger at the government for the fiscal irresponsibility and for saving the too-big-to-fail banks (effectively creating the Tea Party that handed the Congress to Republicans). No reason to think it won't work again. Even better is that it funneled trillions of dollars to the 1% in the process. A win-win-win.
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Not exactly a Trump supporter, but he got elected in 2016, which makes it, well, about a couple of years back from now. So where is the massive debt crisis you are talking about?
  - ramenmeal 8y ago
    He probably means in a couple years from now.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Right, the seeds are sewn, all we have to do is wait. The President and Congress ignored the CBO predictions publicly, because privately the intended purpose is to facilitate another debt crisis, as that is the only way to cut popular social programs.
  - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
    Got elected in 2016. Inaugurated in 2017. Tax law passed in December 2017. So(tongue in cheek), check back in December 2019.
  - gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
    He's referring to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was introduced in late 2017, signed in nearly at the end of the year. The argument would be that it hasn't happened yet, comparing them to the Bush tax cuts (2001, 2003) that lead to problems in 2007/8.
    - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
      Plus the new bill that has passed the House, which would tack on another $2 trillion in debt. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/11/house-gop-is-pushing-new-round-tax-cuts-that-could-cost-trillion-over-years/?utm_term=.fd5a38547f15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/11/house-gop...
  - sxyuan 8y ago
    The Bush tax cuts began in 2001. The effects depend on who you ask, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office "estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest." Of course, the financial crisis and subsequent government stimulus didn't come until 2008. [1] Meanwhile, the Trump tax cut "increases the total projected deficit over the 2018–2028 period by about $1.9 trillion" after accounting for tax-cut-stimulated GDP growth, according to the CBO. [2] For all we know, we could enjoy another 2 (or 6) good years before it all comes crashing down in 2020 with a Democratic president in power. Or not. If I could predict the future, I'd probably have better things to do than respond to Internet comments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts [2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > So where is the massive debt crisis you are talking about? https://www.npr.org/2018/10/16/657790901/federal-deficit-jumps-17-percent-as-tax-cuts-eat-into-government-revenue https://www.npr.org/2018/10/16/657790901/federal-deficit-jum... > The federal deficit ballooned to $779 billion in the just-ended fiscal year — a remarkable tide of red ink for a country not mired in recession or war.
- grey-area 8y ago
  This is explicilty the plan, it's all there in plain sight: https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001/?#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001/?#sp=show-clips https://www.newsweek.com/stock-market-1134867 https://www.newsweek.com/stock-market-1134867
  - robertAngst 8y ago
    >“I think we are going to have a dollar crisis—you think the Turkish lira looks bad now, wait till you see when the dollar is imploding and we have a sovereign debt crisis in the U.S.,” Schiff told the Post. “The U.S. government is going to be given a choice between defaulting on the debt, or else massive runaway inflation.” And people call me crazy to think BTC is going to perform better than USD over 10 years....
wiz21c 8y ago
>> I have great fears that the economy over the next 10 years of my life will be stagnation. Maybe those 10 years will help some to think about a dogma different than "growth" ?
smacktoward 8y ago
You say "stagnation" like that's the worst thing that could possibly happen. My fear is that the next 10-20 years will make us wish we had a stagnant economy.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  Indeed. Financial implosions tend to have bad effects on the political system. If this situation does lead to financial problems the effects probably won't just be limited to China.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    > Financial implosions tend to have bad effects on the political system This is the primary driver behind my suspicion that some form of financial crisis the US economy has begun, but it's not yet visible when people look at the fundamentals. Unemployment is great, wages are rising, assets prices are growing, etc. According to the indicators, the economy is as healthy as it can be. But our political situation suggests something is awry, people are way more pissed off than they should be.
    - smileysteve 8y ago
      > According to the indicators, the economy is as healthy as it can be. Unless your indicators include wealth inequality, personal bankruptcies, wage stagnation, infrastructure repair costs.
      - mywittyname 8y ago
        I meant them to be the indicators listed immediately preceding that statement. You can't deny that most people are saying the economy is doing very well. Unemployment is low, wage growth is happening, large business profits and revenues are up, manufacturing activity is high, retail sales are the highest they've been. Just about every economic indicator captured by the US Census Bureau is very strong. But people are still pissed the fuck off.
NTDF9 8y ago
Do what other economic immigrants do. Move to a high growth country. At some point, a lot of us in the US will be asking: "Is a trillion dollars in interest payments every year, with social security cuts, medicare cuts, bad school funding, high taxes and abomination-level healthcare costs worth it?"
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  Or you could treat this as something other than a fait accompli, make sure your voter registration information is up to date, and vote on November 6. https://www.vote.org https://www.vote.org
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Vote how? Both parties [with a chance of winning] will increase the debt. The exact amount will be different, as will the exact things they spend money on, and how/if they change taxes. However both will continue to spend more than they take in and blame the other party.
    - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
      This is nonsense considering the last time the Democrats controlled the budget that wasn't also during the worst financial crisis in decades, they balanced the budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl...
      - mywittyname 8y ago
        Because he made huge cuts to social welfare programs as he was required to do in order to get a budget passed through a heavily Republican congress. Taxes were also raised and military spending was held steady throughout the 90s.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Not so fast. In 1993/4, Clinton had a plan to cut the budget, with the bulk of the cuts set to happen after he left office, even if he had two terms (which was not a given then). Then the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and they basically starved Clinton of money, and the result was not just a balanced budget, but a surplus. But Clinton doesn't get the credit - he wasn't going to do it on his own. Congress forced him to. For that matter, the previous Democratic president to balance the budget was Andrew Jackson, so don't act like the Democrats are the party who balances the budget. But Republicans only seem to care about financial prudence when they're not in power (or at least, not in the White House). If you actually care about a balanced budget and financial responsibility... the US may not be the right country for you. (Maybe Switzerland?)

jandrese 8y ago

One of the first things Trump did in office was set us up for a massive debt crisis in a couple of years. Same thing George W. Bush did in fact. It worked perfectly, Obama was harshly criticized for running such a massive deficit, and the Congress took the opportunity to sign pledges and cut social programs and blame the president. They generated a ton of anger at the government for the fiscal irresponsibility and for saving the too-big-to-fail banks (effectively creating the Tea Party that handed the Congress to Republicans). No reason to think it won't work again. Even better is that it funneled trillions of dollars to the 1% in the process. A win-win-win.

lostmsu 8y ago
Not exactly a Trump supporter, but he got elected in 2016, which makes it, well, about a couple of years back from now. So where is the massive debt crisis you are talking about?
- ramenmeal 8y ago
  He probably means in a couple years from now.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Right, the seeds are sewn, all we have to do is wait. The President and Congress ignored the CBO predictions publicly, because privately the intended purpose is to facilitate another debt crisis, as that is the only way to cut popular social programs.
- hcknwscommenter 8y ago
  Got elected in 2016. Inaugurated in 2017. Tax law passed in December 2017. So(tongue in cheek), check back in December 2019.
- gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
  He's referring to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was introduced in late 2017, signed in nearly at the end of the year. The argument would be that it hasn't happened yet, comparing them to the Bush tax cuts (2001, 2003) that lead to problems in 2007/8.
  - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
    Plus the new bill that has passed the House, which would tack on another $2 trillion in debt. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/11/house-gop-is-pushing-new-round-tax-cuts-that-could-cost-trillion-over-years/?utm_term=.fd5a38547f15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/11/house-gop...
- sxyuan 8y ago
  The Bush tax cuts began in 2001. The effects depend on who you ask, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office "estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest." Of course, the financial crisis and subsequent government stimulus didn't come until 2008. [1] Meanwhile, the Trump tax cut "increases the total projected deficit over the 2018–2028 period by about $1.9 trillion" after accounting for tax-cut-stimulated GDP growth, according to the CBO. [2] For all we know, we could enjoy another 2 (or 6) good years before it all comes crashing down in 2020 with a Democratic president in power. Or not. If I could predict the future, I'd probably have better things to do than respond to Internet comments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts [2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > So where is the massive debt crisis you are talking about? https://www.npr.org/2018/10/16/657790901/federal-deficit-jumps-17-percent-as-tax-cuts-eat-into-government-revenue https://www.npr.org/2018/10/16/657790901/federal-deficit-jum... > The federal deficit ballooned to $779 billion in the just-ended fiscal year — a remarkable tide of red ink for a country not mired in recession or war.
grey-area 8y ago
This is explicilty the plan, it's all there in plain sight: https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001/?#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001/?#sp=show-clips https://www.newsweek.com/stock-market-1134867 https://www.newsweek.com/stock-market-1134867
- robertAngst 8y ago
  >“I think we are going to have a dollar crisis—you think the Turkish lira looks bad now, wait till you see when the dollar is imploding and we have a sovereign debt crisis in the U.S.,” Schiff told the Post. “The U.S. government is going to be given a choice between defaulting on the debt, or else massive runaway inflation.” And people call me crazy to think BTC is going to perform better than USD over 10 years....

wiz21c 8y ago

>> I have great fears that the economy over the next 10 years of my life will be stagnation. Maybe those 10 years will help some to think about a dogma different than "growth" ?

smacktoward 8y ago

You say "stagnation" like that's the worst thing that could possibly happen. My fear is that the next 10-20 years will make us wish we had a stagnant economy.

hodgesrm 8y ago
Indeed. Financial implosions tend to have bad effects on the political system. If this situation does lead to financial problems the effects probably won't just be limited to China.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  > Financial implosions tend to have bad effects on the political system This is the primary driver behind my suspicion that some form of financial crisis the US economy has begun, but it's not yet visible when people look at the fundamentals. Unemployment is great, wages are rising, assets prices are growing, etc. According to the indicators, the economy is as healthy as it can be. But our political situation suggests something is awry, people are way more pissed off than they should be.
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    > According to the indicators, the economy is as healthy as it can be. Unless your indicators include wealth inequality, personal bankruptcies, wage stagnation, infrastructure repair costs.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      I meant them to be the indicators listed immediately preceding that statement. You can't deny that most people are saying the economy is doing very well. Unemployment is low, wage growth is happening, large business profits and revenues are up, manufacturing activity is high, retail sales are the highest they've been. Just about every economic indicator captured by the US Census Bureau is very strong. But people are still pissed the fuck off.

NTDF9 8y ago

Do what other economic immigrants do. Move to a high growth country. At some point, a lot of us in the US will be asking: "Is a trillion dollars in interest payments every year, with social security cuts, medicare cuts, bad school funding, high taxes and abomination-level healthcare costs worth it?"

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
Or you could treat this as something other than a fait accompli, make sure your voter registration information is up to date, and vote on November 6. https://www.vote.org https://www.vote.org
- bluGill 8y ago
  Vote how? Both parties [with a chance of winning] will increase the debt. The exact amount will be different, as will the exact things they spend money on, and how/if they change taxes. However both will continue to spend more than they take in and blame the other party.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    This is nonsense considering the last time the Democrats controlled the budget that wasn't also during the worst financial crisis in decades, they balanced the budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl...
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      Because he made huge cuts to social welfare programs as he was required to do in order to get a budget passed through a heavily Republican congress. Taxes were also raised and military spending was held steady throughout the 90s.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Not so fast. In 1993/4, Clinton had a plan to cut the budget, with the bulk of the cuts set to happen after he left office, even if he had two terms (which was not a given then). Then the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and they basically starved Clinton of money, and the result was not just a balanced budget, but a surplus. But Clinton doesn't get the credit - he wasn't going to do it on his own. Congress forced him to. For that matter, the previous Democratic president to balance the budget was Andrew Jackson, so don't act like the Democrats are the party who balances the budget. But Republicans only seem to care about financial prudence when they're not in power (or at least, not in the White House). If you actually care about a balanced budget and financial responsibility... the US may not be the right country for you. (Maybe Switzerland?)