I think you may actually be wrong about how much money the poor get from the government. I've been to China and seen with my own eyes entire cities of empty buildings, magnificent six lane highways with no cars, factories with no jobs and no workers. And I think it's foolish to trust any number at all coming from the CCP. The Chinese savings rate may be 50%. It may be 5%. Median savings rate may be 10% and the other 40% come from big averages. The median raw savings amount may be less than the average American's coffee budget - adjusted for exchange rate.

Pointing to China vs the US and saying 'wait until the result of that debt ends' isn't a very strong argument.

Quote:

---

US in a landslide. Unless you are saying that Americans are naturally lazy, then there is no reason to think that under the exact same economic conditions that Americans wouldn't be able to produce at lower cost given that we have more natural advantages such as landmass, resources, etc. Your mind is biased by our current conditions.

---

You've missed my point I'm afraid. I told you - it is unskilled labor. There is no way for anyone to be better at it. The worker is fungible. The natural landmass and resources are irrelevant. The only matter at hand is the cost of the labor. Not the value. The cost. And that cost is different in each market, because the competitive market for labor is different in each market - some places have fewer workers and more jobs, or vice versa, or crappier jobs, or less room so housing is more expensive, whatever. It's the same for any unit of equivalent labor... it will have a different cost to procure in each market, and that cost differential is comparative advantage.

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never continue arguing with aTmAg after he's failed to concede an obvious point."

Zobel said:

---

I think you may actually be wrong about how much money the poor get from the government. I've been to China and seen with my own eyes entire cities of empty buildings, magnificent six lane highways with no cars, factories with no jobs and no workers. And I think it's foolish to trust any number at all coming from the CCP. The Chinese savings rate may be 50%. It may be 5%. Median savings rate may be 10% and the other 40% come from big averages. The median raw savings amount may be less than the average American's coffee budget - adjusted for exchange rate.

---

So I have to say this every time I get into a China vs US argument. I am not saying China is what we should strive to be like. They suck. My point is that there is no reason in the world why we shouldn't be beating the pants off of them.

I agree that they could be lying about every stat the produce. However, the 50% savings rate comes from various sources including those outside of China (like the IMF). The CIA world factbook says it was ~45% in 2019. So either way you cut it, it's a crapload higher than the US.

Quote:

---

Pointing to China vs the US and saying 'wait until the result of that debt ends' isn't a very strong argument.

---

Saying that CCP could be lying about their savings rate, somehow discounts the "wait until debt ends" statement is out of left field. Even if we pretend all the international statisticians are wrong and China's savings rate is only 5%, does that discount the fact that our debt per capita dwarfs theirs? Is the CIA, IMF, UN, and everybody lying about China's debt too? We are basically handing a crap ton of money to the poor every year. To ignore that and say "see how better off our poor are to theirs" is the weak argument here. We aren't going to be able to go into debt indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

US in a landslide. Unless you are saying that Americans are naturally lazy, then there is no reason to think that under the exact same economic conditions that Americans wouldn't be able to produce at lower cost given that we have more natural advantages such as landmass, resources, etc. Your mind is biased by our current conditions.

---

You've missed my point I'm afraid. I told you - it is unskilled labor. There is no way for anyone to be better at it. The worker is fungible. The natural landmass and resources are irrelevant. The only matter at hand is the cost of the labor. Not the value. The cost. And that cost is different in each market, because the competitive market for labor is different in each market - some places have fewer workers and more jobs, or vice versa, or crappier jobs, or less room so housing is more expensive, whatever. It's the same for any unit of equivalent labor... it will have a different cost to procure in each market, and that cost differential is comparative advantage.

---

People move to where the jobs are and employers build factories where the labor is cheap so over time that reach a equilibrium. So I'm not sure why you are fixated on that part. If you assume government systems, natrual resources, capital, etc. are all identical, then the only differentiation is how hard the worker work. If Chinese work 12 hours and Americans quit at 8, then China will out produce us. If it were vice versa then it the results would be too. Not sure why you think this point is noteworthy.

Good point. I yield due to my lack of foresight.

Malibu2 said:

---

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never continue arguing with aTmAg after he's failed to concede an obvious point."

---

It's hilarious how you pretend to leave and be uninterested and then poll this thread still.

Are you ever going to be able to answer the simple question?


(And there is no point you made that is worthy of concession. You literally have fled the real argument and started quoting definitions to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never continue arguing with aTmAg after he's failed to concede an obvious point."

---

It's hilarious how you pretend to leave and be uninterested and then poll this thread still.

Are you ever going to be able to answer the simple question?


(And there is no point you made that is worthy of concession. You literally have fled the real argument and started quoting definitions to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)

---

Falling into the same blunder, but admittedly here for the argues, answered your question in every post on this thread. Unskilled labor costs. They have a competitive advantage in that. And it's not because of the government, it's because they're dirt poor.

Quote:

---

People move to where the jobs are and employers build factories where the labor is cheap so over time that reach a equilibrium. So I'm not sure why you are fixated on that part.

---

Were fixated on this point because it's the entire reason factories for unskilled labor are in Asia and not the US. It's comparative advantage, the entire line of our reasoning, and perhaps we've made a breakthrough here.

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never continue arguing with aTmAg after he's failed to concede an obvious point."

---

It's hilarious how you pretend to leave and be uninterested and then poll this thread still.

Are you ever going to be able to answer the simple question?


(And there is no point you made that is worthy of concession. You literally have fled the real argument and started quoting definitions to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)

---

Falling into the same blunder, but admittedly here for the argues, answered your question in every post on this thread. Unskilled labor costs. They have a competitive advantage in that. And it's not because of the government, it's because they're dirt poor.

Quote:

---

People move to where the jobs are and employers build factories where the labor is cheap so over time that reach a equilibrium. So I'm not sure why you are fixated on that part.

---

Were fixated on this point because it's the entire reason factories for unskilled labor are in Asia and not the US. It's comparative advantage, the entire line of our reasoning, and perhaps we've made a breakthrough here.

---

So their advantage is that they are slaves to communism and we are fat, lazy, prideful, and too busy to make things?

There are countries far poorer than China with far more unskilled labor who we don't pay to manufacture our goods? Why?

This is where Trump was right all along. China has been stealing from us, both physically and intellectually, for decades.. while we subsidize the people who could do just as much or more production as the Chinese poor (assuming Econ 101 all things equal). We gladly allow them to have full access to our resources, companies, research, and opportunity while we whine about a living wage. All in a system that we manipulated because we fell into the trap of believing that our government overlords can tinker in just the right ways to keep economic prosperity moderately average enough to think it will never end as they explode out debt and ration away our future in the name of keeping the charade going.

This has all been a giant experiment in Keynesian economic manipulation. And the Chinese are literally toying with us while positioning their pieces behind the scenes (and in the White House, academia, media, etc).

There isn't a level playing field because we're playing in a stadium built on the backs of taxpayers who aren't even born yet.

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never continue arguing with aTmAg after he's failed to concede an obvious point."

---

It's hilarious how you pretend to leave and be uninterested and then poll this thread still.

Are you ever going to be able to answer the simple question?


(And there is no point you made that is worthy of concession. You literally have fled the real argument and started quoting definitions to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)

---

Falling into the same blunder, but admittedly here for the argues, answered your question in every post on this thread. Unskilled labor costs. They have a competitive advantage in that. And it's not because of the government, it's because they're dirt poor.

---

Until recently, my posts have been 2-3 times longer than yours. Each time, you only address a point or two that you (incorrectly) think you have a good retort to.

And it IS because of the government. Our government PAYS people to not work. That is what keeps many of ours from ever being "China poor". If our government paid them NOTHING, then they too would face starvation if they refused to work. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

People move to where the jobs are and employers build factories where the labor is cheap so over time that reach a equilibrium. So I'm not sure why you are fixated on that part.

---

Were fixated on this point because it's the entire reason factories for unskilled labor are in Asia and not the US. It's comparative advantage, the entire line of our reasoning, and perhaps we've made a breakthrough here.

---

We USED to have far more factories (both skilled and unskilled) here, even though we weren't "dirt poor". What changed? Our government policy. We started paying people to not work, added a crap ton of regulations, taxed the crap out of everybody, etc. Call it our "comparative disadvantage" or whatever you want, it was government idiocy that made it all happen.

I've tried to be careful of saying Asia and not using it interchangeably with China. Tons of stuff is made in Vietnam (high skilled finished textiles) and Bangladesh (low skill finished textiles), and Malaysia (widget manufacturing to avoid tariffs). My last job as Controller dealing with contract manufacturers in China and shifting supply chains from Malaysia to China after the Trump tariffs.

As far as China is concerned, you're correct about theft and I have two criticisms of Trump on his actions on China. The first is using bogus economic arguments about trade deficits and that China was paying that were hogwash. The second is that they weren't draconian enough nor evenly applied. Too much sieves to slip through and not enough customs agents to find some of the creative import codes I saw our competitors use. Once Hong Kong was taken over the tariffs should have gone to 250%.

When you have long posts I'm simply not going to reply to or acknowledge everything.

What keeps our welfare recipients from being China poor is not the government. It's that we have ****load more wealth here and our poor can make more driving for Uber than they possibly could sewing buttons onto coats.

As for what changed, it was multi-lateral trade agreements that dramatically reduces tariffs and huge improvements in logistics to move goods all over the world so that the world's poorest people could move from the rice paddies and start pressing the button on the metal fabricators. That had far more to do with the jobs leaving than Uncle Sam's entitlements.

Quote:

---

Call it our "comparative disadvantage" or whatever you want, it was government idiocy that made it all happen.

---

Sorry to keep harping on this but this is getting pretty annoying. You are getting very offended that I would dare question your mighty intellectual economic prowess and encyclopedic knowledge of economic truths. The problem is your clumsy use economic language that has a specific meaning. Comparative advantage is about opportunity costs, not about who does it better.

Malibu2 said:

---

When you have long posts I'm simply not going to reply to or acknowledge everything.

---

Yet you conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that you apparently consider inconvenient to your argument.

Quote:

---

What keeps our welfare recipients from being China poor is not the government. It's that we have ****load more wealth here and our poor can make more driving for Uber than they possibly could sewing buttons onto coats.

---

First of all, we probably have have negative wealth. Total US wealth (assets-liabilities) is about $105T. But that doesn't count unfunded liabilities (such as what we will end up owing in government pensions of current government employees). I've seen estimates of that anywhere from $71T to $210T. Secondly, Uber was founded in 2009. China has been out manufacturing us much longer than that. You will probably, amend your statement and say "uber like jobs" or something. So let me ask you, why can't these Uber-ish jobs offer $.01/hour? Answer: because their next best offer pays more than that. Why can't that job offer $.01/hour? Same answer. What is keeping the last offer from offering $.01/hour? Answer: government entitlements. If government were offering $50K a year to the unemployed, then nobody would accept any job that pays less than $50K a year (actually more). Can you at least admit that fact? You have been avoiding this point all day.

Quote:

---

As for what changed, it was multi-lateral trade agreements that dramatically reduces tariffs and huge improvements in logistics to move goods all over the world so that the world's poorest people could move from the rice paddies and start pressing the button on the metal fabricators. That had far more to do with the jobs leaving than Uncle Sam's entitlements.

---

This is a bunch of desperate hand wavey nonsense. Why didn't Mexico become the China instead of China? Or any of the other crap-hole countries that have zero-floor salaries? Here is a hint for you: The Fed tracks the number of American manufacturing jobs. Our peak was in 1979 (30 years prior to Uber). What else happened in 1979? Here is another hint: google for "what year did China start free market". Answer: (top link) 1979. Here is the sentence google highlights:

Quote:

---

Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world's fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging 9.5% through 2018, a pace described by the World Bank as "the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history."

---

That year China surpassed the US as a better manufacturing environment. China simply out free marketed us (despite being repressive in 100 other ways). But it had been a long time coming. The inflection point was well before that, and we had been slowing down for decades. That was a result of us increasingly stifling our free market.

Malibu2 said:

---

Quote:

---

Call it our "comparative disadvantage" or whatever you want, it was government idiocy that made it all happen.

---

Sorry to keep harping on this but this is getting pretty annoying. You are getting very offended that I would dare question your mighty intellectual economic prowess and encyclopedic knowledge of economic truths. The problem is your clumsy use economic language that has a specific meaning. Comparative advantage is about opportunity costs, not about who does it better.

---

Every decently college educated person knows what comparative advantage means. You are simply wrong on your use of it in trying to explain our decline.

OMG, this getting farcical. "I totally know the definition of comparative advantage!" Then start using it correctly.

And the post above it makes two equally weird claims. The first is wondering why Mexico didn't become China. Umm, they did. Mexico and the rest of the poor world also manufactures a **** ton of stuff that is exported to the US because of cheap labor. On Mexico specifically my business is opening a back office support business unit in Mexico City because-wait for it-we get cheaper educated labor there. The second is standing agog that more jobs moved to China when they opened their market. Well no **** Sherlock, I wonder *why* those businesses chose to leave, couldn't possibly be cheap labor, could it.

And your final plea that I acknowledge that if the opportunity cost of not working is a big government check, people will choose not to work is acknowledged and agreed. You've somehow harped on that to mean that absent that specific opportunity cost, the other opportunity cost: a different job in a competitive market where the cost of labor is also determined by the laws of supply, would not exist and wages would collapse to levels such that a Cambodian farmer could no longer work for less money than an American. It's a very bad argument that you've continued to make repeatedly in this thread.

I'm as much of a degenerate arguer as you are, but I have a Friday's worth of stuff to do, so I'll give you the last word here. I'm going to move to other things.

You did it again. You fill a post with a bunch of nonsense in attempt to distract. I asked you a question specifically and you avoided it. So I'll ask it again here:

Do you agree, that if government were offering $50K a year to the unemployed, then nobody would accept any job that pays less than $50K a year (actually more)?

aTmAg said:

---

You did it again. You fill a post with a bunch of nonsense in attempt to distract. I asked you a question specifically and you avoided it. So I'll ask it again here:

Do you agree, that if government were offering $50K a year to the unemployed, then nobody would accept any job that pays less than $50K a year (actually more)?

---

I edited my post above, perhaps after you read it and it directly answers your question: if the opportunity cost of not working is a big government check, people will choose not to work is acknowledged and agreed.

Happy Friday

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

That is not a good list to compare ourselves to. Most of those countries are complete and total trainwrecks.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

That is not a good list to compare ourselves to. Most of those countries are complete and total trainwrecks.

---

There have been several studies done that say we can easily maintain a debt/gdp of 180%-185% with no negative consequences.

Oldag2020 said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

That is not a good list to compare ourselves to. Most of those countries are complete and total trainwrecks.

---

There have been several studies done that say we can easily maintain a debt/gdp of 180%-185% with no negative consequences.

---

"Studies", at the end of the day what happens on the street is all that the average person is going to care about.

Using the last published amounts on St Louis Fed website, Q1 Gross public dept to May GDP is 127%.

Malibu2 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

You did it again. You fill a post with a bunch of nonsense in attempt to distract. I asked you a question specifically and you avoided it. So I'll ask it again here:

Do you agree, that if government were offering $50K a year to the unemployed, then nobody would accept any job that pays less than $50K a year (actually more)?

---

I edited my post above, perhaps after you read it and it directly answers your question: if the opportunity cost of not working is a big government check, people will choose not to work is acknowledged and agreed.

Happy Friday

---

So I assume I don't have to string you along and lower the number to $40K, $30K, etc. and make you say yes over and over.

So does that mean you agree that any amount that government gives the poor, will raise the minimum salaries they are willing to accept?

mazag08 said:

---

Using the last published amounts on St Louis Fed website, Q1 Gross public dept to May GDP is 127%.

---

Still a far cry from 185%

Oldag2020 said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Using the last published amounts on St Louis Fed website, Q1 Gross public dept to May GDP is 127%.

---

Still a far cry from 185%

---

Just wait until we get Q2 #'s.

That's the entire point we are trying to get across. We are EXPLODING ourselves on a path to competing with some of the most hamstrung economies in the world. But we're not the worst, yet, so yay for that.

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

Incorrect. Like I said before GDP is a joke metric. Hurricane Katrina raised GDP.

The (funded) national debt per American citizen is $85K. That is including every child. For each taxpayer it is: $226K. There is no way in hell we are paying that back.

mazag08 said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Using the last published amounts on St Louis Fed website, Q1 Gross public dept to May GDP is 127%.

---

Still a far cry from 185%

---

Just wait until we get Q2 #'s.

That's the entire point we are trying to get across. We are EXPLODING ourselves on a path to competing with some of the most hamstrung economies in the world. But we're not the worst, yet, so yay for that.

---

Wouldn't you agree that we need to maximize our debt/gdp as long as we keep it under the breakpoint?

In order to grow as quickly as possible, we need delt/gdp to be as high as possible

Oldag2020 said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Using the last published amounts on St Louis Fed website, Q1 Gross public dept to May GDP is 127%.

---

Still a far cry from 185%

---

Just wait until we get Q2 #'s.

That's the entire point we are trying to get across. We are EXPLODING ourselves on a path to competing with some of the most hamstrung economies in the world. But we're not the worst, yet, so yay for that.

---

Wouldn't you agree that we need to maximize our debt/gdp as long as we keep it under the breakpoint?

In order to grow as quickly as possible, we need delt/gdp to be as high as possible

---

This idiotic thinking is what leads to bubbles.

Bubbles always explode.

aTmAg said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

Incorrect. Like I said before GDP is a joke metric. Hurricane Katrina raised GDP.

The (funded) national debt per American citizen is $85K. That is including every child. For each taxpayer it is: $226K. There is no way in hell we are paying that back.

---

You're failing to comprehend that if our gdp raises by 20% we have 20% more tax revenue. Since interest payments are likely fixed and long term, we can use that debt to grow and use the growth to repay the debt.

JFC, you do realize interest rates AREN'T fixed for federal debt. Right?

The fed is artificially keeping it at zero, they will rise at some point to cool the 'hot' economy. When that happens the cost to service the debt is going to explode. Resulting in less public funds for things that are necessary.

If you think the Fed is going to keep rates at 0 forever, return your diploma and ring. You are an idiot.

The fed has already signaled they WILL increase the rates AFTER the midterms. It's all politically driven to push through Biden's economic disaster plan.

In short: you're using garbage assumptions.

Oldag2020 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Oldag2020 said:

---

Again, governments are not the same as corporation or individuals. Debt is important, and necessary, for economic expansion. Debt levels do not matter. The only statistic that matters in debt/gdp.

Take a look at this chart.

Name. National Debt to GDP Ratio
Japan 237.54%
Venezuela 214.45%
Sudan 177.87%
Greece 174.15%
Lebanon 157.81%
Italy 133.43%
Eritrea 127.34%
Cape Verde 125.29%
Mozambique 124.46%
Portugal 119.46%
*UNITED STATES* 106.70%
Belgium 99.57%
France 99.20%
Spain 95.96%

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt

---

Incorrect. Like I said before GDP is a joke metric. Hurricane Katrina raised GDP.

The (funded) national debt per American citizen is $85K. That is including every child. For each taxpayer it is: $226K. There is no way in hell we are paying that back.

---

You're failing to comprehend that if our gdp raises by 20% we have 20% more tax revenue. Since interest payments are likely fixed and long term, we can use that debt to grow and use the growth to repay the debt.

---

No, you are failing to comprehend. A 20% GDP growth that is not a 20% grown in purchasing power is fake growth. It's on paper only. Do you see any scenario where every one of us experiences a 20% growth in purchasing power? Hell no.

And our debt is always rolling over. It's not like we have a 30 year reprieve on dealing with interest rates ever again. And we can't keep interest rates at near 0% long term without printing a crap ton of money the whole time. That will also be a disaster.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

JFC, you do realize interest rates AREN'T fixed for federal debt. Right?

The fed is artificially keeping it at zero, they will rise at some point to cool the 'hot' economy. When that happens the cost to service the debt is going to explode. Resulting in less public funds for things that are necessary.

If you think the Fed is going to keep rates at 0 forever, return your diploma and ring. You are an idiot.

The fed has already signaled they WILL increase the rates AFTER the midterms. It's all politically driven to push through Biden's economic disaster plan.

In short: you're using garbage assumptions.

---

But will the change interest rates be larger than the increase in tax revenue? If int rates go up 2% but we grew gdp by 7% and tax revenue increased by 7% there is a difference of 5% to make debt payments

My sonic drink order on Wednesday: $1.64
My sonic drink order this morning: $2.24

Employers also build factories where regulations are lax or are changed favorably by an autocratic power from the top down at the convenience of that power in order to secure the capital investment.

aggietony2010 said:

---

My sonic drink order on Wednesday: $1.64
My sonic drink order this morning: $2.24

---

I agree, happy hour is a lot cheaper

Meanwhile, the Dow Jones is having its worst week since January thanks to Government interference in the economy: extended unemployment benefits which discourages filling vacant jobs, preventing or discouraging petroleum exploration on federal lands, killing the pipeline deal which will affect supply, massive borrowing which will trigger inflationary pressures and announcement by the St Louis Federal Reserve chief that rate hikes in the interest rate could come next year. In six months the Biden administration has managed to undo all the good that Trump did for the economy.