Can Hillary reduce the debt?

[Kulindahr]

The Republican house will not give her the class warfare tax increase upon which her plan is predicated. They my give Trump what he needs.

There's no "class warfare" involved, just solid economics.

You like medians, and there's a very important median number for U.S. economics. The name of this number is something like "excess value" which means the value of a thing over what is paid to make or provide it. It turns out that the median excess value of goods and services per worker in the U.S. is on the order of $65,000. The question then, since the workers aren't getting that money, is where it's going -- and the answer is that it's going disproportionately to the wealthy.

An honest economic system would provide the majority of the value of something to those who generated that something and thus provided the value. Since that isn't being done, it is sensible to recover much of the excess value and put it to work for the direct benefit of those who generated that value, which would be all U.S. workers. Balancing the budget and adding some to pay down the debt is good for all American workers, so tax rates which achieve that are economically sound.

This is just pragmatism. If you want to call something "class warfare", it would be the system that takes $65k per year of value from those who generated it and hands it to those who didn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's beyond my pay grade, but, it seems that the GDP to debt ratio has to change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio

If I'm reading that right (this late at night), it means that if the U.S. began the ordinary approach to paying off debt it would take over a thousand years to do it!

I think it can be done in a hair under 50, taking Hillary's policy proposals and adding the 0.1% electronic transaction tax I mentioned earlier.

Or NASA can get busy catching asteroids, and bring it down to twenty-five or thirty.

 

[Kulindahr]

No they don't. All businesses carry both liabilities and assets. The US pays off old debts as it floats new debt.

No, it doesn't. The U.S. still owes a debt from the time of George Washington!: " the government still owes $55,757 from its first bond issue in 1790, which was used to pay off the states' Revolutionary War debt." source The oldest debt is exempt from the debt limit calculation, so Congress has no incentive to pay it. Additionally, they pass authorization bills for things and expilcitly state that the borrowing for the program doesn't count toward the debt limit, adding more for which there is no incentive to repay.

Yes, a great deal is rolled over, but not all.

The US operates exactly like a business. It facilitates growth just like business does. Even if it did not, the same principle applies. It needs to float debt in order to fund that growth. Taxes can do the same thing, but may do more harm than good, just like debts. The point is to discriminate and strike a balance.

It doesn't "need to float debt". For example, Microsoft doesn't, and other corporations are looking to follow suit. And a great deal of that debt doesn't fund growth of anything unless death and destruction count as "growth".

I think you are stuck in a prejudiced mindset against debt, when actually good debts lift the country up by funding economic growth and other things we cannot do without, i.e. defense and the care of the elderly. A more constructive exercise would be to prioritize paying off debts that are not working in the public interest.

Good debt is debt which results in more than enough income to pay off the debt in a reasonable term. The moment you are using debt to pay old debt, you aren't dealing with good debt.

NO long-term debt is "working in the public interest". Every dime in interest is a dime not spent on roads, bridges, clean water, etc.

 

[Benvolio]

There's no "class warfare" involved, just solid economics.

You like medians, and there's a very important median number for U.S. economics. The name of this number is something like "excess value" which means the value of a thing over what is paid to make or provide it. It turns out that the median excess value of goods and services per worker in the U.S. is on the order of $65,000. The question then, since the workers aren't getting that money, is where it's going -- and the answer is that it's going disproportionately to the wealthy.

An honest economic system would provide the majority of the value of something to those who generated that something and thus provided the value. Since that isn't being done, it is sensible to recover much of the excess value and put it to work for the direct benefit of those who generated that value, which would be all U.S. workers. Balancing the budget and adding some to pay down the debt is good for all American workers, so tax rates which achieve that are economically sound.

This is just pragmatism. If you want to call something "class warfare", it would be the system that takes $65k per year of value from those who generated it and hands it to those who didn't.

This doctrine is directly from Marx. He called it surplus value but it is the same thing. The fallacy is that the capitalist provises the idea, often an innovation, takes the risk, provides the building, the equipment, the raw material, the management, and pays for the mountain of taxes and legal burdens. The worker provides his labor which is is worth what he can get in the market place, i.e. working for others. Labor is really not worth much, since we have a excess of labor, and the work can often be moved to even lower wage places.
So your fallacy is in thinking, with Marx, that the worker is the "one who generated that value." No, no, no. The capitalist is the the one who created the excess value, and he is the most valuable part of the business. The workers are replaceable, usually with ease. If the workers don't believe it they are free to start their own business. Even less are US workers the generators, since the influx of cheap foreign workers often puts US workers out of work. You and your Marx are incorrect.

 

[TX-Beau]

...This is why while I'd rather have the GOP in control of the Senate I badly want the House to fall to the Dems: while Dems may like to add social program spending, they are also willing to take the conservative step of being responsible and reducing the debt..

The House is not going to change hands, that would be like miracle territory, Trump would actually have to go shoot a bunch of Nuns on 5th Avenue - or maybe just grab them all by the pussy, for that to happen. The Dems would need massive Democratic turnout, and massive Republican apathy, and even then it would be iffy.

As to the Senate, IF it was your Grandpa's Republicans I might agree with this, but the current Republicans aren't going to do a damn thing to fix the gridlock, they are beholden to their crazy radicals who think that breaking the country is a good idea, none of them are centrists, and because of that, even the ones who look "moderate" like Ryan, are just a lesser species of crazy radical.

 

[Kulindahr]

This doctrine is directly from Marx. He called it surplus value but it is the same thing. The fallacy is that the capitalist provises the idea, often an innovation, takes the risk, provides the building, the equipment, the raw material, the management, and pays for the mountain of taxes and legal burdens. The worker provides his labor which is is worth what he can get in the market place, i.e. working for others. Labor is really not worth much, since we have a excess of labor, and the work can often be moved to even lower wage places.
So your fallacy is in thinking, with Marx, that the worker is the "one who generated that value." No, no, no. The capitalist is the the one who created the excess value, and he is the most valuable part of the business. The workers are replaceable, usually with ease. If the workers don't believe it they are free to start their own business. Even less are US workers the generators, since the influx of cheap foreign workers often puts US workers out of work. You and your Marx are incorrect.

Rubbish. Just because Marx saw a truth doesn't make it wrong.

An idea is just an idea until someone makes it happen. So yes, the worker is the one who generated the value -- without the worker, there is no product or service.

That $65k per worker per year is going somewhere besides to the worker says there is something wrong with the system. It's over three times the median income for paychecks, which means that well over half the value is being taken by people who aren't earning that income. If we want to say that fifty-fifty split is fair, then worker paychecks should double. As it is, workers fall into what has been traditionally defined as serfdom.

Honest capitalists know this. Henry Ford knew it; he returned well over half the value to his workers, for the simple reason that it benefited him. Today's capitalist are economic rapists.

 

[Kulindahr]

The House is not going to change hands, that would be like miracle territory, Trump would actually have to go shoot a bunch of Nuns on 5th Avenue - or maybe just grab them all by the pussy, for that to happen. The Dems would need massive Democratic turnout, and massive Republican apathy, and even then it would be iffy.

As to the Senate, IF it was your Grandpa's Republicans I might agree with this, but the current Republicans aren't going to do a damn thing to fix the gridlock, they are beholden to their crazy radicals who think that breaking the country is a good idea, none of them are centrists, and because of that, even the ones who look "moderate" like Ryan, are just a lesser species of crazy radical.

They'd still be my grandpa's Republicans if it weren't for the stupid Seventeenth Amendment.

 

[Benvolio]

Rubbish. Just because Marx saw a truth doesn't make it wrong.

An idea is just an idea until someone makes it happen. So yes, the worker is the one who generated the value -- without the worker, there is no product or service.

That $65k per worker per year is going somewhere besides to the worker says there is something wrong with the system. It's over three times the median income for paychecks, which means that well over half the value is being taken by people who aren't earning that income. If we want to say that fifty-fifty split is fair, then worker paychecks should double. As it is, workers fall into what has been traditionally defined as serfdom.

Honest capitalists know this. Henry Ford knew it; he returned well over half the value to his workers, for the simple reason that it benefited him. Today's capitalist are economic rapists.

Nonsense. If a business is making more than 65K per worker it is not the result of the 9 to 5 workers, it is the result of superior innovation and management. It is proof that the business as such has a superior idea, method, product, and/or management. The workers can easily be replaced.
No, the worker is not the one who generated the extra value. Without the business, there is no product or service. Sure, workers, like equipment, building etc are needed but they are easily obtained and easily replaced. Without the employer they would have no jobs. And if the workers want the excess value they should start their own businesses. Many do, but then after the hard work, innovation, and sacrifice necessary to start of business they are not inclined to give the profits to the 9 to 5 people hired off the street. More importantly, if the profits are taxed away or given to the workers, there is no incentive to work, sacrifice, and.innovate to start or manage a business. That is the basic fallacy of your brand socialism.
Marx was just wrong. He wrote in the early days of capitalism and the industrial revolution, when much of manufacturing involved basic tools and products. He failed to understand the importance of incentive, innovation and management. Alas we are in danger of unlearning what we should know.

 

[Kabluey]

Nonsense. If a business is making more than 65K per worker it is not the result of the 9 to 5 workers, it is the result of superior innovation and management. It is proof that the business as such has a superior idea, method, product, and/or management. The workers can easily be replaced.
No, the worker is not the one who generated the extra value. Without the business, there is no product or service. Sure, workers, like equipment, building etc are needed but they are easily obtained and easily replaced. Without the employer they would have no jobs. And if the workers want the excess value they should start their own businesses. Many do, but then after the hard work, innovation, and sacrifice necessary to start of business they are not inclined to give the profits to the 9 to 5 people hired off the street. More importantly, if the profits are taxed away or given to the workers, there is no incentive to work, sacrifice, and.innovate to start or manage a business. That is the basic fallacy of your brand socialism.
Marx was just wrong. He wrote in the early days of capitalism and the industrial revolution, when much of manufacturing involved basic tools and products. He failed to understand the importance of incentive, innovation and management. Alas we are in danger of unlearning what we should know.

You actually think that genius is rewarded?
Nameless engineer develops new technology.
CEO puts name on patent and gets rewarded for its success.
Technician gets paid the same wage they always did. Maybe a raise. No credit.
Maybe they get made redundant.

That's how it works. The only exceptions are those who are effectively salesmen on commission in any industry.

 

[gsdx]

You actually think that genius is rewarded?
Nameless engineer develops new technology.
CEO puts name on patent and gets rewarded for its success.
Technician gets paid the same wage they always did. Maybe a raise. No credit.
Maybe they get made redundant.

Indeed. Think Thomas Edison.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense. If a business is making more than 65K per worker it is not the result of the 9 to 5 workers, it is the result of superior innovation and management. It is proof that the business as such has a superior idea, method, product, and/or management. The workers can easily be replaced.
No, the worker is not the one who generated the extra value. Without the business, there is no product or service. Sure, workers, like equipment, building etc are needed but they are easily obtained and easily replaced. Without the employer they would have no jobs. And if the workers want the excess value they should start their own businesses. Many do, but then after the hard work, innovation, and sacrifice necessary to start of business they are not inclined to give the profits to the 9 to 5 people hired off the street. More importantly, if the profits are taxed away or given to the workers, there is no incentive to work, sacrifice, and.innovate to start or manage a business. That is the basic fallacy of your brand socialism.
Marx was just wrong. He wrote in the early days of capitalism and the industrial revolution, when much of manufacturing involved basic tools and products. He failed to understand the importance of incentive, innovation and management. Alas we are in danger of unlearning what we should know.

Your theory does not match reality. The system you are defending isn't capitalism, but economic predation. It's a system that is bad for the whole, resulting in a smaller economy than would be the case if employers followed Henry Ford's example.

Consider that if the added value were split fifty-fifty, the result would be an increased purchasing power in the U.S. of upwards of two trillion dollars annually, with just about all of that getting spent on consumer goods. Compare that figure to the GDP and think about the impact it would have.

Historically, capitalism has been the worst thing ever to happen to workers, especially the U.S. variety where the only people considered real are the capitalists and the workers are regarded as so much livestock. The T-shirt that says (Medieval serfs had it easier than you" is quite correct: a medieval serf, except for a few weeks out of the year, worked fewer hours per week and far fewer days per year than the American laborer.

 

[Kulindahr]

You actually think that genius is rewarded?
Nameless engineer develops new technology.
CEO puts name on patent and gets rewarded for its success.
Technician gets paid the same wage they always did. Maybe a raise. No credit.
Maybe they get made redundant.

That's how it works. The only exceptions are those who are effectively salesmen on commission in any industry.

He thinks people can go out and start competing companies, too, when the reality is that the giant corporations he loves will just crush them with tactics both legal and non-legal. And they get away with it because the corporations own the regulatory agencies.

 

[kallipolis]

Historically, capitalism has been the worst thing ever to happen to workers, especially the U.S. variety where the only people considered real are the capitalists and the workers are regarded as so much livestock. The T-shirt that says (Medieval serfs had it easier than you" is quite correct: a medieval serf, except for a few weeks out of the year, worked fewer hours per week and far fewer days per year than the American laborer.

This is a bizarre personal opinion remote from reality that fails to recognise the benefits that accrued to the ordinary working American man, and woman who benefitted immensely from an economy that in the forty years following the end of the Second World War created a wealthy, and happy American population...and the most successful economic power on this planet.

My uncle Stelios emigrated to the United States in 1960 finally settling in Hampton Roads where he worked at a shipyard as an electrician for a private contractor until his retirement. Stelios continues to sing the benefits of the American economy that enabled him to buy a house, feed his wife, and children with sufficient excess money to send his two children to university. Never did Stelios complain of being exploited by capitalists.

Trump's regular references to the good times that my uncle's generation enjoyed has struck a chord with many Americans wanting a return to more prosperous times when American workers were not only well paid, but also received benefits that made them the envy of the world.

 

[Kabluey]

^ it strikes a chord, but it also strikes many as empty rhetoric and blame shifting.
So much easier to blame minorities than the actions of a country's leaders (both political and economic).

 

[kallipolis]

^ it strikes a chord, but it also strikes many as empty rhetoric and blame shifting.
So much easier to blame minorities than the actions of a country's leaders (both political and economic).

Any politician will take advantage of their supporter's fears, and frustations to further their electoral campaign.

Scapegoats are always the result of economic stagnation, fueling insecurities enabling Trump to blame immigrants.

As we have discovered in Greece our political elites across the political divide have contributed enormously to the economic meltdown that continues to blight our current, and future prosperity.

 

[peeonme]

This is a bizarre personal opinion remote from reality that fails to recognise the benefits that accrued to the ordinary working American man, and woman who benefitted immensely from an economy that in the forty years following the end of the Second World War created a wealthy, and happy American population...and the most successful economic power on this planet.

My uncle Stelios emigrated to the United States in 1960 finally settling in Hampton Roads where he worked at a shipyard as an electrician for a private contractor until his retirement. Stelios continues to sing the benefits of the American economy that enabled him to buy a house, feed his wife, and children with sufficient excess money to send his two children to university. Never did Stelios complain of being exploited by capitalists.

Trump's regular references to the good times that my uncle's generation enjoyed has struck a chord with many Americans wanting a return to more prosperous times when American workers were not only well paid, but also received benefits that made them the envy of the world.

The middle class that your uncle thrived in is no more. There are few trades left that still pay enough to live the life that American blue collar skilled workers saw in the 60's.

I saw it slip away from the time of Reagan until the present. Stagnant wages, benefits that require a payment from the worker such as health care and fewer hours. Most trades men thrived on overtime. In my trade a 58 hour work week was pretty standard as was paid health insurance.

Now it's maybe 45 hours on pay that hasn't gone up in many years along with a deduction for health care. When I retired I paid $102. per week.
My former employer is running adds that offer the same starting pay as when I hired in back in 2010.

Many say to get a degree, well, I speak to many that have done that. They made less than I did.

In capitalism the value of anything is based upon supply and demand. A great demand and a short supply creates a higher value,
globalization has flooded America with workers by outsourcing.

Obama refers to "the new economy", there is no new economy, nothing ever replaced the jobs that were stripped from the Middle class.

 

[kallipolis]

We face similar realities in Greece with salaries in my line of work reduced by fifty percent over the past five years, and pensions slashed by similar percentages. Times are tough when facing a national unemployment in Greece of 25 pct. Count your blessings for the American unemployment rate is 5 pct.

 

[Benvolio]

With high immigration it can only get worse, as the spuuly of workers exceeds the demand. The unemployment rate is misleading as it does not include the tens of millions who have stopped looking..

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a bizarre personal opinion remote from reality that fails to recognise the benefits that accrued to the ordinary working American man, and woman who benefitted immensely from an economy that in the forty years following the end of the Second World War created a wealthy, and happy American population...and the most successful economic power on this planet.

My uncle Stelios emigrated to the United States in 1960 finally settling in Hampton Roads where he worked at a shipyard as an electrician for a private contractor until his retirement. Stelios continues to sing the benefits of the American economy that enabled him to buy a house, feed his wife, and children with sufficient excess money to send his two children to university. Never did Stelios complain of being exploited by capitalists.

Trump's regular references to the good times that my uncle's generation enjoyed has struck a chord with many Americans wanting a return to more prosperous times when American workers were not only well paid, but also received benefits that made them the envy of the world.

The economy in those forty years after WWII resulted from socialist intervention in capitalism, e.g. massive building of roads, extension of electrical power to rural areas, the G.I. Bill. If capitalism had been left alone without heavy government 'guidance', those years would have been some of the most miserable in U.S. history.

Your uncle benefited from something almost universally despised by Trump followers, namely union efforts without which employers would never have paid enough to buy a house, etc. He didn't complain about being exploited by capitalists because they were restrained from doing so, or he would never have benefited.


This is historical reality: capitalism has fought tooth and nail against benefiting the worker; it has only done so when restrained by the forces of civilization. So when your uncle and others sang/sing the praises of the America economic system, they can do so not because of capitalism the horse but because of its riders, unions and government.

 

[Kulindahr]

The middle class that your uncle thrived in is no more. There are few trades left that still pay enough to live the life that American blue collar skilled workers saw in the 60's.

I saw it slip away from the time of Reagan until the present. Stagnant wages, benefits that require a payment from the worker such as health care and fewer hours. Most trades men thrived on overtime. In my trade a 58 hour work week was pretty standard as was paid health insurance.

Now it's maybe 45 hours on pay that hasn't gone up in many years along with a deduction for health care. When I retired I paid $102. per week.
My former employer is running adds that offer the same starting pay as when I hired in back in 2010.

Many say to get a degree, well, I speak to many that have done that. They made less than I did.

In capitalism the value of anything is based upon supply and demand. A great demand and a short supply creates a higher value,
globalization has flooded America with workers by outsourcing.

Obama refers to "the new economy", there is no new economy, nothing ever replaced the jobs that were stripped from the Middle class.

Exactly: capitalism on its own, which is what since Reagan policies have been trying to return us to, gives as little as possible to the worker -- and prefers to run government by putting the costs on the poor.