I find when I read the word global, I can readily substitute the word worldwide for it and the meaning of what I am reading does not change. This means to me to make the word global somewhat redundant. It always seems to work for me, try it.
The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
the world's largest economy used smoke, mirrors and profiligate spending to announce economic growth of 3.5% for 2005. from the difference between 2004 and 2005 GDP, take out the public debt incurred to achieve that "growth" and whats left is a startling $4.1B dollars, a sum readily attributable to the seigniorage of international reserve hegemony.
Currently, America is using their plutonium Visa card so openly it hides the utter stagnation of their economy. That was JRS's point, one stunt after another the possibility that for the average individual things are economically either the same or worse than they were in the time he referred to (read that one a while ago) escapes the common view.
He's not so illiterate as you think.
Toro said:
the world's largest economy used smoke, mirrors and profiligate spending to announce economic growth of 3.5% for 2005. from the difference between 2004 and 2005 GDP, take out the public debt incurred to achieve that "growth" and whats left is a startling $4.1B dollars, a sum readily attributable to the seigniorage of international reserve hegemony.
Currently, America is using their plutonium Visa card so openly it hides the utter stagnation of their economy. That was JRS's point, one stunt after another the possibility that for the average individual things are economically either the same or worse than they were in the time he referred to (read that one a while ago) escapes the common view.
He's not so illiterate as you think.
RE: The Collapse of Globa
What are you talking about?
The net worth of the United States is $52 trillion.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf
If what you are saying is true, net worth would have declined, not risen.
You understand that, right?
What are you talking about?
The net worth of the United States is $52 trillion.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf
If what you are saying is true, net worth would have declined, not risen.
You understand that, right?
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
not if population increased. recessions and depressions are generally defined by growth or lack thereof. 3 negatives in a row makes for a recession.
here's what's reported:
GDP (Chained 2000)
10,755.7
11,134.6
= +3.5% growth
GDP (Current Dollars)
2004 11,734.3
2005 12,485.7
US Debt (Current Dollars)
2004 7,596,144
2005 8,170,414
do the math
Toro said:
not if population increased. recessions and depressions are generally defined by growth or lack thereof. 3 negatives in a row makes for a recession.
here's what's reported:
GDP (Chained 2000)
10,755.7
11,134.6
= +3.5% growth
GDP (Current Dollars)
2004 11,734.3
2005 12,485.7
US Debt (Current Dollars)
2004 7,596,144
2005 8,170,414
do the math
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
So YOU'VE defined a recession, yet the BEA has not. Funny, since all the economists in America aren't saying its a recession. Fascinating, that.
Did you hit the link?
US assets
2004 $58.9 trillion.
2005 $64.0 trillion.
US net worth.
2004 $48.2 trillion
2005 $52.1 trillion
It went up much faster than than debt.
US government debt went up $600 billion, yet household net worth rose $4 trillion.
That ain't happening in a "recession".
BitWhys said:
So YOU'VE defined a recession, yet the BEA has not. Funny, since all the economists in America aren't saying its a recession. Fascinating, that.
Did you hit the link?
US assets
2004 $58.9 trillion.
2005 $64.0 trillion.
US net worth.
2004 $48.2 trillion
2005 $52.1 trillion
It went up much faster than than debt.
US government debt went up $600 billion, yet household net worth rose $4 trillion.
That ain't happening in a "recession".
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
That's net worth of hourseholds. You are looking at gross debt of governments.
To make an apples to apples comparison, you need to look at net government liabilities
Table EO78 of the OECD at the bottom of the page in an excel file. Net government liabilities rose from 45.1% of the economy to 45.7% of the economy.
Using GDP from the Bureau of Economic Statistics, we find that net government liabilities rose from 0.451($11,734B)=$5,292 in 2004 to 0.457($12,487)=$5,707. Thus, total US wealth rose from $48,250-$5,292B=$42,958B to $52,107B-$5,707B=$46,400B, or 8%, faster than the rate of population growth and the rate of inflation combined
To compare the growth of debt and GDP is to make a false comparison. The proper comparison is debt to assets. GDP is the value of all added goods and services produced in the economy.
BitWhys said:
That's net worth of hourseholds. You are looking at gross debt of governments.
To make an apples to apples comparison, you need to look at net government liabilities
Table EO78 of the OECD at the bottom of the page in an excel file. Net government liabilities rose from 45.1% of the economy to 45.7% of the economy.
Using GDP from the Bureau of Economic Statistics, we find that net government liabilities rose from 0.451($11,734B)=$5,292 in 2004 to 0.457($12,487)=$5,707. Thus, total US wealth rose from $48,250-$5,292B=$42,958B to $52,107B-$5,707B=$46,400B, or 8%, faster than the rate of population growth and the rate of inflation combined
To compare the growth of debt and GDP is to make a false comparison. The proper comparison is debt to assets. GDP is the value of all added goods and services produced in the economy.
BitWhys said:
Ah yes, the man who, in one fell swoop of the hand, dismisses econometrics as bogus. How convenient that is, since econometrical statistical methods pretty much lay waste to his claims. Of course, he knows that, and can't argue the numbers, so he tries to undercut the discipline since its the only way he can possibly be taken seriously.
You make a valid point about housing, but its intellectually incorrect to compare the increase in debt with the increase in GDP.
Saul is a lightweight and shouldn't be taken seriously on this subject.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
really
better tell the IMF then. they use it all the time. for example...
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2004/pn0452.htm
Toro said:
really
better tell the IMF then. they use it all the time. for example...
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2004/pn0452.htm
RE: The Collapse of Globa
Interesting link BitWhys, I might be seeing things wrong but it looks to me like Uncle Sams on the financial skids.
Interesting link BitWhys, I might be seeing things wrong but it looks to me like Uncle Sams on the financial skids.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
I meant in the manner you were refering when extrapolating economic growth to the rise in debt. You were saying that we were in a recession because there was a decrease in GDP after adjusting for debt and population. It is correct to adjust for population, it isn't when adjusting for debt in this manner. It is valid to say that more debt is pushing the economy higher than it otherwise would be. Its not valid to say that we are in a recession.
That doesn't mean its irrelevent. Far from it. The bond market in sovereign credits pays great attention too. I am more than aware of the rising debt in the economy and the roll that it plays. And it certainly could cause a recession in the future.
BitWhys said:
I meant in the manner you were refering when extrapolating economic growth to the rise in debt. You were saying that we were in a recession because there was a decrease in GDP after adjusting for debt and population. It is correct to adjust for population, it isn't when adjusting for debt in this manner. It is valid to say that more debt is pushing the economy higher than it otherwise would be. Its not valid to say that we are in a recession.
That doesn't mean its irrelevent. Far from it. The bond market in sovereign credits pays great attention too. I am more than aware of the rising debt in the economy and the roll that it plays. And it certainly could cause a recession in the future.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
Reminds me of the Reagan era, when the fringe left was predicting the inevitable demise of the US within a couple of years.
darkbeaver said:
Reminds me of the Reagan era, when the fringe left was predicting the inevitable demise of the US within a couple of years.
RE: The Collapse of Globa
It appears that you may have deregulated yourselves into bankruptcy, Uncle Ronnie was a dummy.
It appears that you may have deregulated yourselves into bankruptcy, Uncle Ronnie was a dummy.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
Using the world's largest economy again, I'd say the stagflation of the 70s, Volker's interest rates, and Reagan's recession were nothing to write home about. Globally there was the Asian Bubble and the collapse of the Soviet Union to consider.
I'd say the economy wasn't that great.
Toro said:
Using the world's largest economy again, I'd say the stagflation of the 70s, Volker's interest rates, and Reagan's recession were nothing to write home about. Globally there was the Asian Bubble and the collapse of the Soviet Union to consider.
I'd say the economy wasn't that great.