America: The Bankrupt empire?

[CaptainHarlock]

American Exceptionalism, as brought to you by Newt & Callista, with special guest appearances by the Donald & Michele Bachman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQsCW1hbOGw

I think you're wildly over-pessimistic Keefe. The most exceptional thing about the US is surely the size of its military spending, but that military spending is one key to solving the debt problems of the US. With so much room to cut back in military spending, getting the US solvent isn't an intractable problem. Some of the European countries, & Japan, face more significant problems because their demographic situation is more severe & they don't have such a huge military sector that they can cut back on.

Cut military spending, eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, reduce corporate & payroll taxes, promote spending on higher education & R & D, rationalize entitlement programs, & the budget deficit can be cut. If the economy finally starts to grow again it will be possible to start paying down the accumulated debt. This is what happened in the Clinton years - a combination of reduced spending, the "peace dividend" following the end of the Cold War & economic growth inspired by the tech revolution, led to a few years of budget surpluses. But in order to accomplish this, there has to be some kind of co-operation between the opposing forces in US politics & the building of some kind of consensus as to how to proceed.

China may be growing rapidly but I'm convinced that there are serious underlying problems - economic, social & political - that are concealed by the lack of transparency in China & that will at some point come to a head & stop, or at least slow down China's rise. Unfortunately, given the interdependence of the world's economies, I suspect that China's problems will also create problems for other countries.

See here's the thing; there's been a fundamental shift in the nature of military spending over the last 40 years or so. It's not about keeping soldiers housed, fed, paid, and outfitted anymore. It's now about well meaning senators preserving jobs in their states. It happens all the time in my state, Connecticut. Companies like Pratt and Whitney and General Dynamics never diversified to cope with business AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union. So now you have people like Sen. Joseph Leiberman who fights to have yet another Trident Submarine built by Electric Boat in Groton. Sure we don't need it, but he just saved about 10,000 jobs. Which also feeds into the "problem" that many have with education spending. There's a perception that that "education doesn't produce anything", which is utter 🤬 . Those companies could be working on high speed rail or hydrogen fuel cells, but they make more money off nuclear subs.

What's unbelievable now is that in the US you have the poor defending the rich. You hear such buzzwords as "class warfare" and "envy", when it's really about fairness. Mitt Romney who's running for the Republican nomination currently pays only 15% of his $43 MILLION income in taxes, and that number comes from investments. Many who drive around all day and listen to conservative talk radio will tell you that there's no problem with that, because he's one of the "job creators" or "the investor class". Yeah right. One man who comes into where I work said once that we can't tax the rich, and I asked him why not. He said, I kid you not, "because I might be rich someday". Well guess what? YOU'RE NOT NOW!!! We're seeing public sentiment now coming back to the middle about this. This whole idea about "the poor rich" is becoming more ludicrous by the day, and rightfully so.

China over the last few years has quietly concealed some of it's own problems. They are building empty cities, with nobody living in them. Yet they see their GDP growing as long as they're building, so they keep building.

 

[Dapper]

The poor people who do the work keep getting poorer, but the bigwigs and people in DC keep raking in record profits because they have to charge ever more for things that cost a dollar less the day before.

This is nonsense. How can a person make record profits but need to charge more? You see, your idea of the world is just completely askew and in obvious ways.

It is worth noting Apple said this exact same thing. They said they have no option but to manufacture stuff in China because it is so cheap, yet they set a quarterly record of $46.33 billion dollars. And profit $400,000 per employee.

Our currency and most currencies around the world have experienced rapid inflation within that time period. The recent recession saw actual production in the US drop to the lowest point in decades. Most of the increase in GDP can be attributed directly to inflation which simply leads to bigger numbers with no added value. It's hardly proper to adjust these numbers for inflation because the "official" inflation statistics are published by the same organization who is creating the inflation in the first place - the central bank/government. The published inflation statistics in the US are always lower than the numbers you get by analyzing market price variations. Keep in mind that the methods the government uses to calculate these statistics change over time. If you were to use methods from the past - in these charts from SGS they use 1990 and 1980 methods to complement current government methods - you see different (usually higher) results.

This chart also agrees with the official figures, putting current CPI at under 4%. I repeat, SGS's chart using 1990 Consumer Price Index calculation methods put current CPI at over 6%, while the 1980 calculation methods place CPI at over 10% annual inflation. That may explain why the government insists that inflation isn't that bad, while the public at large is bitching louder than ever that everything keeps getting more expensive.

I understand your perception is different than mine. However, you are clearly just ignoring reality. No matter what you think, the US is growing exponentially.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

See here's the thing; there's been a fundamental shift in the nature of military spending over the last 40 years or so. It's not about keeping soldiers housed, fed, paid, and outfitted anymore. It's now about well meaning senators preserving jobs in their states. It happens all the time in my state, Connecticut. Companies like Pratt and Whitney and General Dynamics never diversified to cope with business AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union. So now you have people like Sen. Joseph Leiberman who fights to have yet another Trident Submarine built by Electric Boat in Groton. Sure we don't need it, but he just saved about 10,000 jobs. Which also feeds into the "problem" that many have with education spending. There's a perception that that "education doesn't produce anything", which is utter 🤬 . Those companies could be working on high speed rail or hydrogen fuel cells, but they make more money off nuclear subs.

What's unbelievable now is that in the US you have the poor defending the rich. You hear such buzzwords as "class warfare" and "envy", when it's really about fairness. Mitt Romney who's running for the Republican nomination currently pays only 15% of his $43 MILLION income in taxes, and that number comes from investments. Many who drive around all day and listen to conservative talk radio will tell you that there's no problem with that, because he's one of the "job creators" or "the investor class". Yeah right. One man who comes into where I work said once that we can't tax the rich, and I asked him why not. He said, I kid you not, "because I might be rich someday". Well guess what? YOU'RE NOT NOW!!! We're seeing public sentiment now coming back to the middle about this. This whole idea about "the poor rich" is becoming more ludicrous by the day, and rightfully so.

China over the last few years has quietly concealed some of it's own problems. They are building empty cities, with nobody living in them. Yet they see their GDP growing as long as they're building, so they keep building.

Wow 👍

I have to agree with you, this same trend is seen with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and close to where I live Raytheon. This same trend is seen with those three, and yes it's great for job creation, but then you have an over supply of weapons at least from a standpoint of country to country.

It's important not to hate successful people for being successful, if people have the drive and motivation to succeed and earn a grandiose living then why should they be dragged down towards those who lack those traits, choose to do nothing with their life or just don't have the genes to succeed.
Direct any disgust upon the politics behind the economics that are causing the growing divide.

This ^ here doesn't sound all that coherent? What are you really trying to say, no one is hating anyone for being to successful or amassing a great amount of wealth. Also, some people don't make that wealth on their own, not every multi million - multi billionaire are like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, many inherit a business as well. The problem people have is that when a big corporation like say GE or someone else (Goldman Sachs, etc.) uses the power of their money to persuade law making policies for a state or the nation.

When a company worth several hundred million or a several billion is able to fund a campaign and get that person to the oval office, that is an issue. That means that all others who were potentially better are drowned out. When those same companies have invested interest and money in big media corporations who moderate debates as well as present news with pundits trying to convince you the issue is bigger. There are people right now with great ideas that will become big 10 to 20 years from now, but certain policies made by current groups/big companies and those in government together may hurt those from climbing up that ladder. That doesn't make them weak or unable, just thwarted by a corrupt system.

All in all you're post is very black and white, the world isn't one thing or the other, a lot of grey is involved.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

delete

 

[Keef]

This is nonsense. How can a person make record profits but need to charge more? You see, your idea of the world is just completely askew and in obvious ways.

It is worth noting Apple said this exact same thing. They said they have no option but to manufacture stuff in China because it is so cheap, yet they set a quarterly record of $46 billion dollars. And profit $400,000 per employee.

Has the price of gas gone up in the last few years? Milk? Bread? Corn? Cars? Wood at the lumberyard? Fertilizer? Mulch? Steel and other raw manufacturing materials? Labor? The damn overdraft charge at your bank? Silver? Gold? I could be mistaken but I think the price of gold has gone up a buck or two.

You just stated the fact that Apple - along with numerous other companies - have recently recorded record profits. And I already stated the fact that these numbers, whether they be prices or profits, are distorted by inflation that is forcing the value of the dollar down and therefore the dollar amounts up. Another point I made was that manufacturing costs are going up across the board - you reiterated my point by stating that Apple has been moving production to China to seek cheaper manufacturing costs. You've provided evidence supporting all these things that I said.

I understand your perception is different than mine. However, you are clearly just ignoring reality. No matter what you think, the US is growing exponentially.

I find it hard to believe that if you looked around yourself in West Virginia that you would see any growth at all that wasn't publicly funded. By the way, government spending is calculated as part of GDP. The Heritage Foundation calculates government spending's portion of GPD at over 40%.

 

[Dapper]

Has the price of gas gone up in the last few years? Milk? Bread? Corn? Cars? Wood at the lumberyard? Fertilizer? Mulch? Steel and other raw manufacturing materials? Labor? The damn overdraft charge at your bank? Silver? Gold? I could be mistaken but I think the price of gold has gone up a buck or two.

You just stated the fact that Apple - along with numerous other companies - have recently recorded record profits. And I already stated the fact that these numbers, whether they be prices or profits, are distorted by inflation that is forcing the value of the dollar down and therefore the dollar amounts up. Another point I made was that manufacturing costs are going up across the board - you reiterated my point by stating that Apple has been moving production to China to seek cheaper manufacturing costs. You've provided evidence supporting all these things that I said.

Gas cost more; cars get more miles per gallon. The iphone 4s cost 1/3 as much as the first iphone and has more than twice the processing power. Anything concerning manufacturing or being produced in general may cost slightly more (in real dollars), but they are now better quality and vary more than in the past. Gold has no reason to change in value, though.

And you think the $46billion figure is a product of inflation, but a dollar buys more now than it did in past in many instances. Just look at Apple's products as I mentioned.

This disproves your thinking. People spend less money on the stuff you listed now than a generation ago. As she points out, a household has 2 incomes now compared to 1 historically. But you think bread, at $1.00 per loaf, or milk, $3/gallon, is making people poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
You need to watch the whole thing, but the best, most graphic part starts around 15minutes or so.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Gas cost more; cars get more miles per gallon. The iphone 4s cost 1/3 as much as the first iphone and has more than twice the processing power. Anything concerning manufacturing or being produced in general may cost slightly more (in real dollars), but they are now better quality and vary more than in the past. Gold has no reason to change in value, though.

And you think the $46billion figure is a product of inflation, but a dollar buys more now than it did in past in many instances. Just look at Apple's products as I mentioned.

This disproves your thinking. People spend less money on the stuff you listed now than a generation ago. As she points out, a household has 2 incomes now compared to 1 historically. But you think bread, at $1.00 per loaf, or milk, $3/gallon, is making people poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
You need to watch the whole thing, but the best, most graphic part starts around 15minutes or so.

I knew when you said she you were going to give us all an Elizabeth Warren video.

 

[Keef]

Gas cost more; cars get more miles per gallon. The iphone 4s cost 1/3 as much as the first iphone and has more than twice the processing power. Anything concerning manufacturing or being produced in general may cost slightly more (in real dollars), but they are now better quality and vary more than in the past. Gold has no reason to change in value, though.

And you think the $46billion figure is a product of inflation, but a dollar buys more now than it did in past in many instances. Just look at Apple's products as I mentioned.

This disproves your thinking. People spend less money on the stuff you listed now than a generation ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Improvements in efficiency have done wonders to counteract inflation, I'll admit that. The electronics industry is the best example of this. The manufacturing industry is probably the worst - it's widely known that manufacturing companies have been failing or leaving the country for quite some time now. Apparently Apple was one of them. While a TV of today is a much sweeter thing than a TV of 1950, it's still a TV. Prices of TVs have effectively gone down over the years despite inflation, as is the case with most electronics. This is not the case for industries that can't move out of the US - they either fail, or in the case of US farms, depend on government subsidies for survival.

Also, your video is about the "Collapse of the Middle Class" as is clearly stated in the title. At about 9 minutes into the video the speaker presents graphs showing how income for families has risen since the 1970s - but income for males in general has remained stagnant. Before that she made a point that two-income families are commonplace today, but that was not the case in the 1970s and before. Families make a bit more money today, yes, but in most cases both parents are working to support the family lifestyle as opposed to only one being able to do it decades ago.

Soon after that, she presents a graph showing how families managed to save about 11% of their incomes during the 70s. Today families have negative savings - a product of deficit spending. Just like the government, most Americans have credit debt and are actually losing money because of it. She supports this with data showing credit debt as a small fraction of family income during the 70s, and 15% of family income in 2005 (apparently the year of her modern data).

She goes on about housing prices being the real killer, yada yada, but her point is the same as mine. The middle class is disappearing, most people are getting poorer, and only a few are getting richer. I don't need any of this data she's presenting - I already know this jist of it. I know what Keynesian economics is, I know how it works, and I know how it destroys everything. You're not showing me anything I don't already know.

I don't understand why you keep posting evidence that supports my argument? You trolling on me or what?

 

[Dapper]

I don't understand why you keep posting evidence that supports my argument? You trolling on me or what?

You just ignore what really happens.
All the things you claim are the reasons causing the "poor people who do the work keep getting poorer" is not what is making them poorer. You missed that part I guess. What you think is wrong.

and only a few are getting richer.

How can you say that but also say this?

they have to charge ever more for things

How are people that are making more money required to charge more?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How are people that are making more money required to charge more?

Hyper inflation, and now we've come full circle.

As he said on paper it looks like they have made record profits and so on. However, when you equate inflation into it, they really haven't made record profits, it only seems that way because inflation has made it to where the dollar on a world economy level is worth less than before. Thus you have to spend more for goods because of it, and by spending more companies are making more revenue wise but spending money on goods to produce their goods, which may lose money as well.

At least this is the point I think Keef is trying to make.

 

[Dapper]

Hyper inflation, and now we've come full circle.

We are talking about the US. The US hasn't been close to hyper inflation since the Civil War.

As he said on paper it looks like they have made record profits and so on.

Their growth is far beyond inflation rates. Their profits are real.

And you are forgetting the CEO's salary is increasing while the people buying their product has a stagnant salary. Why should their income rise?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We are talking about the US.

I don't recall stating any other nation so...yeah not sure why you saying that is important. If you go back and look at my full quote you'll see what I was trying to do.

 

[Keef]

How are people that are making more money required to charge more?

How exactly do you think the price of a candy bar goes up from $.99 to $1.09? Some magical fairy flies around and changes stuff when nobody is looking? It's called inflation son. All the dollar amounts are going up but the actual value isn't changing.

 

[Dapper]

How exactly do you think the price of a candy bar goes up from $.99 to $1.09? Some magical fairy flies around and changes stuff when nobody is looking? It's called inflation son. All the dollar amounts are going up but the actually value isn't changing.

You are so ignorant, meaning you have no idea what you are talking about. People spend less on candy bars now than in years past. Didn't you watch the video, kid?

You are wrong. What you believe and what you said are wrong.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We are talking about the US. The US hasn't been close to hyper inflation since the Civil War.

Their growth is far beyond inflation rates. Their profits are real.

And you are forgetting the CEO's salary is increasing while the people buying their product has a stagnant salary. Why should their income rise?

They were also making big salaries in the middle of 2007-2010 when the economy was at it's worst. The same could be said, how were they able to manage billion dollar salaries while being supplied tarp funds. A question that your favorite Elizabeth Warren also posed.

Maybe you can answer it where Githner couldn't

You are so ignorant, meaning you have no idea what you are talking about. People spend less on candy bars now than in years past. Didn't you watch the video, kid?

You are wrong. What you believe and what you said are wrong.

"In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation also reflects an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of account in the economy." Economic definition of Inflation.

I mean unless the Macro Economics class I took for college was wrong

 

[Zenith]

You are so ignorant, meaning you have no idea what you are talking about. People spend less on candy bars now than in years past. Didn't you watch the video, kid?

You are wrong. What you believe and what you said are wrong.

Quoted from The Unofficial Opinions Forum Guide:

1. Name calling

That is one of the oldest tricks in the world, and a very successful one too. By repetively reminding your opponent, over a long period of time, hom much of a ****bag he really is, there's a good chances he'll finally get it! There lies the foundation of a mutual comprehension, and many notorious agreements have been made this way over time. For beginners, using "Idiot" or "tool" is a good place to start before getting into more advanced and educated terms.

To quote Socrates:

"Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others, you stupid tools"

Only once he understood how much of a brain-depraved ****head he was that Plato became one of his follower.

Why go JohnBM01's way when you can make an effortless, concise point like:

"You're just a ****ing liberal democrat wussie."

"Stop being a fat blood-thirsty warmongering ass, for god's sake."

Advanced techniques of this include insulting third-party groups, or other nations to make the speaker realize that he's better off not being like them.
Now go pratice a little, you brainless turds. (see?) Master this one and I promise you'll pwn all over the place.

...

3. Repetion

Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!Thoroughly repeat your thoughts on the issue (no real need to actually add something new to them), at least 10 times each over a thread. Over time, your opponent will become accustomed to hear your point, he'll finally get it. An advantage of this technique is that since it has already been demonstrated that your opponent has the IQ of a rocking chair, you may also try to copy/paste them from previous posts, for a time-savvy debate!

When you write messages like that, it becomes clear who's the kid.

 

[Keef]

You are so ignorant, meaning you have no idea what you are talking about. People spend less on candy bars now than in years past. Didn't you watch the video, kid?

You are wrong. What you believe and what you said are wrong.

Maybe they spend less on candy bars because they can't ****ing afford it anymore!

My dad goes on and on about how a Hershey bar used to cost $.05. Now it costs over a dollar. Explain that to me please.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Wait Keef, maybe Dapper is trying to say that the cost of living gap is much less now than it was before. In that case if he is, he needs to learn his economic terms, for an intellectual stand point.

 

[A2K78]

Some interesting fact about american debt:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/34-shocking-facts-about-us-debt.html

I find fact #8, 11, 13, 18, and 31 quite interesting

on something else quite interesting:


http://jimrogers-investments.blogspot.com/2011/05/us-federal-debt-is-unpayable.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Some interesting fact about american debt:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/34-shocking-facts-about-us-debt.html

I find fact #8, 11, 13, 18, and 31 quite interesting

on something else quite interesting:


http://jimrogers-investments.blogspot.com/2011/05/us-federal-debt-is-unpayable.html

Thank you, although Keef already showed us number 18 earlier in this thread well at least I think it was him. Anyways someone here said that Government spending was more than 40% of the GDP.

Either way great post and very informative.

 

[BobK]

Gas cost more; cars get more miles per gallon.

In the time I've had a driving license, the price of gas has increased tenfold. During that same time, my mileage per gallon has increased by perhaps 50%.

And you think the $46billion figure is a product of inflation, but a dollar buys more now than it did in past in many instances. Just look at Apple's products as I mentioned.

I buy an electronics device occasionally. I buy groceries every week. And it's the groceries that keep going up in price. Furthermore, the electronics device is optional. The groceries aren't.

 

[Keef]

Either way great post and very informative.

That GPD number is different than pretty much every other number I found anywhere else. Lew Rockwell is just as good a source as the Heritage Foundation, both of which are different (and higher) than the government figure. This just goes to show that nobody actually knows the answer, that's how complicated it is.

 

[Dapper]

In the time I've had a driving license, the price of gas has increased tenfold. During that same time, my mileage per gallon has increased by perhaps 50%.


I buy an electronics device occasionally. I buy groceries every week. And it's the groceries that keep going up in price. Furthermore, the electronics device is optional. The groceries aren't.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
I think the current average gas price is mid to high $3 range. According to your gas mileage numbers, it sounds about right. Gas has gone up, but not much. That is not mentioning the improvements in gas quality and how much better it is now compared to then, either.

As far as food goes, Warren says families spend less on food now compared to ~1970.
You can't say people eat less-
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

Maybe they spend less on candy bars because they can't ****ing afford it anymore!

My dad goes on and on about how a Hershey bar used to cost $.05. Now it costs over a dollar. Explain that to me please.

Warren explained where families spend money compared to 30 years ago, and it wasn't on chocolate. And you and your father have the same linear minded thinking problem.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx
The inflation you speak of does not exist. It is no more now than it ever has been.

http://consumptiongrowth101.com/FinalValue.php
Now you can show your dad how something can cost $.05 at childhood and end up costing a dollar by the later adult years.

 

[Keef]

Warren explained where families spend money compared to 30 years ago, and it wasn't on chocolate. And you and your father have the same linear minded thinking problem.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx
The inflation you speak of does not exist. It is no more now than it ever has been.

You did it. You just did it. You just posted official government figures for inflation, which I have already posted and demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

http://consumptiongrowth101.com/FinalValue.php
Now you can show your dad how something can cost $.05 at childhood and end up costing a dollar by the later adult years.

According to that calculator, $.05 becomes $1.07 after 51 years at an inflation rate of 6%. My dad is 63 years old. He may or may not have bought a candy bar at the age of 12. That 6% inflation rate is much higher than officially published figures, which I have already demonstrated, and the 6% rate agrees with SGS chart when using 1990 CPI methodology.

So once again, you have posted evidence supporting my argument.

 

[Dapper]

Inflation benefits the rich and powerful because they gather tremendous amounts of money.

How is it beneficial if the money they gather is worth less? And, remember, people are spending less on everything except mortgages, insurance, and taxes, so how is their, the rich, income growth greater than the people that are now buying less of their goods/services?

It hurts the laymen; because the lowered value of money, prices of commodities and supplies go up, and employer costs go up, so they can't afford to pay their employees more.

But why is it hurting more now than any other time in history? The inflation rate is the same.

Employee wages become stagnant - but keep in mind the value of money is constantly dropping, which means that "stagnant" wages are actually worth less over time. The poor people who do the work keep getting poorer, but the bigwigs and people in DC keep raking in record profits because they have to charge ever more for things that cost a dollar less the day before. This phenomenon leads to the destruction of a middle-class leaving the working people, the vast majority of the population, poor while the few powerful people are richer than ever.

You don't mean literally richer, just numbers bigger richer, right? What you are saying does not support the idea of growth in real dollars for anyone.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

We're getting there in a damn hurry.

As for paying off our debt, it's totally doable. The first step would be massive spending cuts, immediately. The next step would be even more cuts. It's going to get worse before it gets better, that's a fact, but we can decide whether we want to to be light, swift, and soon, or heavy and drawn out long into the future. The longer we wait to attack the problem, the worse the correction will hurt.

You are buying the GOP party line hook, line, and sinker.

The middle of an economic crisis or a fragile recovery is NOT the time for economic austerity.

Spending cuts hit the middle and lower classes harder than anyone else...and guess who spends the money that gets the economy churning? The US does indeed have to take grand, sweeping action to reduce its debt, but to do so now, with the Eurozone teetering on the edge of another recession that will cascade across the Atlantic in an instant, is incredibly short-sighted.

WHERE was this demand and panic about the debt ceiling and austerity during the 8 years of the Bush adminstration? The GOP has manufactured a national debt narrative to forward their stated goal from Day 1 of the Obama presidency: "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

 

[Keef]

...and guess who spends the money that gets the economy churning?

The guy who thinks spending is the root of a healthy economy is telling me how to run it? Welcome to Keynesian Failure 101.

 

[Dotini]

As the OP suggests, the US is a de facto empire, with military bases and "client states" all over the world. Also, as suggested, the US is many trillions in debt with no clear or easy way to get back into the black.

The old-fashioned way that empires used to deal with this problem was to rape, pillage, and burn. In other words, the empire was financed by successful military campaigns against various tribes or nations that posed threats and had resources such as women, gold, oil, timber, land, water or other valuable resources from which the empire could prosper.

The trouble with the US is, although we have been almost continually at war since 1945, there have been no clear victories and several costly setbacks, and have not served the righteous purpose (for an empire) of enriching the central treasury and securing a one-way inflow of lesser nations' resources.

Accordingly, it seems clear and obvious that it is well past time for the US to either ditch being an empire, or "get with the program" and start winning our wars for a change. We need to win these wars in order to restore a permanent source of tribute and put the empire back on a healthy footing.

Assuming we want to continue as an empire, I suggest we mount an immediate campaign against an easy, nearby mug with lots of cash and valuable resources. This is none other than Canada. Easily securing Canadian gold, oil, uranium, rare-earth minerals, timber, water, fisheries and agriculture for the higher use and aggrandizement of the empire should be a no-brainer, even for our PTSD damaged trigger-pullers and their eggheaded generals like Patraeus.

All we need now is an aggressive, visionary leader like Newt, Mitt, or Rick with a big, hairy sack who will go out and lead the charge.

Facetiously submitted,
Steve

 

[Dapper]

My dad goes on and on about how a Hershey bar used to cost $.05. Now it costs over a dollar. Explain that to me please.

Keef, did you show your dad how a candy bar can go from a nickel to a dollar?
Starting at a nickel, or $0.05, a candy bar cost $0.13 after 20 years.
After 40 years it cost $0.37. And after 60 years it will cost about $1.00.

This is using 5% constant inflation. A nickel candy bar turns into a dollar explained.

And since we used Apple as our example of inflation covering growth, it is worth noting Apple's Q1 earnings were nearly twice what they were in Q1 2011. And inflation has been at a constant rate. Even if that rate is 6%, that does not come close to hampering the actual, real growth. Of course the same goes for every company, and your thinking is just as wrong with them as it is with Apple. And you have yet to prove this spike in inflation you insist on.

 

[Dotini]

This is using 5% constant inflation. A nickel candy bar turns into a dollar explained.

5% inflation is ruinous. The Fed is supposed to intervene and do something whenever the inflation rate approaches 2%.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve