Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 350 (605519)
02-20-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2011 2:23 AM


Re: no brainer?
The USA has two major impacts on world trade; call them "competitive advantages". One is housing in that the USA is a great place to live. The other is investment.
Until recently (it may be starting to shift, but the current turmoil might change that) the US Dollar has been the global "reserve currency". Basically what this means is that significant quantities of the currency are held by foreign governments and financial institutions as part of their foreign exchange reserve.
When someone in one country wants to buy a good or service from a different country they cannot pay in their local currency because the foreigner isn't going to want their paycheck in that currency. So they have to exchange one currency for another, and there is a pool of this currency held by those who import and export to facilitate such exchanges.
Being the issuer of a global reserve currency allows the USA to purchase commodities at a marginally lower rate than other nations (who must exchange their currencies with each purchase and pay a transaction cost). It also allows the US government to borrow at a better rate because there will always be a larger market for the currency than for others. And we all know that the US government *loves* to borrow!
So here we are with mounds of debt to foreign countries and an extremely desirable position with regard to both borrowing and purchasing efficiency. But this could all come tumbling down if a foreign power or powers were able to forcefully coerce the USA's fiscal policy.
We are the wealthy gentleman who owns significant parts of every business in town, and similarly owes significant debts to pretty much everyone. He runs most of the trade in town and owns the bank, but his success depends on being secure. If he can be pushed around or the bank robbed then he is ruined.
So he carries a big fucking gun so nobody ever even dreams of messing with his shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 7:54 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 350 (605551)
02-20-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by frako
02-20-2011 7:54 PM


Re: no brainer?
frako writes:
When the dollar was dropping like a stone it really screwed the EU economy because of this shit.
Right, and the Euro is actually why I was saying that this was potentially shifting. But interestingly enough the EU is having their own issues with the depression of the Euro; in specific off the top of my head I believe Germany is rather pissed about bailing out... Hungary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 7:54 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 8:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 350 (605555)
02-20-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by frako
02-20-2011 8:07 PM


Re: no brainer?
frako writes:
i would really like some more guarantees on the lones that we and all the other EU countries give.
And its that urge exactly which is stressing the entire economic alliance. The only sort of guarantee that a country isn't going to be a continual drain needing to be bailed out is to link fiscal regulation. Fix the policies that got them in that situation to start with.
But of course nobody wants to give up that power. They joined in an alliance to try to break the US's strangle hold on the world reserve currency, not to give up their sovereignty. Except they now shackled themselves to a reserve currency that is proving to be more of a drain than anything, and more importantly one which they don't have any ability to either regulate or divest themselves of.
I'm of course not going to make any predictions, but I'm sure the opinion of many about the Euro has soured as of late.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 8:07 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:33 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 350 (605559)
02-20-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
02-20-2011 8:33 PM


Re: no brainer?
RAZD writes:
can we get back to the topic?
What, you had a topic?
I find that hard to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 350 (605598)
02-21-2011 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
02-21-2011 12:29 AM


Re: Opt Out Plan
And somehow you have missed the biggest part of the bill: Military defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 12:29 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 350 (605753)
02-21-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by xongsmith
02-21-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
xongsmith writes:
Over 90% of all the world's criminal activity is done at the behest of the Top Fortune 500 corporations.
Whaaaaaat? Cite. Sounds like you are a bit too gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 02-21-2011 11:44 PM xongsmith has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 350 (605754)
02-21-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
02-21-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
RAZD writes:
Corporations cannot exist without workers, but workers can (happily) exist without corporations.
Thats because corporations *are* workers. Organized workers dedicated to a common goal, but its all just workers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 5:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:24 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2011 10:27 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 350 (605760)
02-22-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
02-21-2011 3:14 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Phat writes:
If expenses need to be cut, cutting the wages of breadwinners in order to stimulate the productivity of corporations and business is counterproductive to the very idea of the American Dream.
Historically the public sector is significantly more wasteful than the private sector, due to the lack of any meaningful competition. I also disagree that the American Dream is to be taxed in order to pay the wages of "breadwinners". If a public sector job can be transferred to the private sector without compromising its execution then its always going to be a good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 02-21-2011 3:14 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:37 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 02-22-2011 1:08 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:26 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2011 10:50 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 350 (605763)
02-22-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
02-21-2011 2:33 PM


Re: no brainer?
crashfrog writes:
I confess, your position on this issue came as a complete surprise given the strong correlation between evolution denial and political conservativism/voting for Republicans.
There is also a strong correlation between eating rice and Communism. You should probably reexamine your expectations if Capitalist sushi-eaters are a complete surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2011 2:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 350 (605773)
02-22-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by xongsmith
02-22-2011 12:24 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
xongsmith writes:
Phage0070 writes:
Thats because corporations *are* workers. Organized workers dedicated to a common goal, but its all just workers.
WTF are you smokin'? I want some.
Do you disagree? A corporation is simply an organization of workers which is tailored to certain types of investment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:24 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 3:48 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 350 (605777)
02-22-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by xongsmith
02-22-2011 12:37 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
xongsmith writes:
Historically the public sector is doing all the important work.
There are certainly many important things the government must do, but certainly not all the important things. For instance almost everything you eat wasn't made by the public sector. How you get to work, how you cloth yourself, how your shelter is built, thats all mostly private sector. The drugs you buy and the healthcare you receive are mostly private sector.
And for most of the things which are provided by the public sector there are private alternatives which are superior in some cases. For instance private teachers, private firefighters, private security, private road maintenance, private librarians, private garbage collection services, etc.
xongsmith writes:
You are arguing that making pet rocks is less wasteful than teaching our children. You are arguing that running American Idol is less wasteful than the providing our soldiers with adequate protection from IEDs. You are arguing that a computer store is less wasteful than a firestation.
And you are arguing a straw man.
xongsmith writes:
If a public sector job can be transferred to the private sector without compromising its execution then its always going to be a good idea.
That has never happened.
Ever.
Then you would argue that a command economy where every possible industry, good, or service is run by the government must necessarily be more efficient and operate in a superior manner than in an economy with a private sector, right?
In that case you are simply ignorant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:37 AM xongsmith has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 350 (605779)
02-22-2011 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by xongsmith
02-22-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
xongsmith writes:
A corporation is nothing less than a dictatorship, dude.
You don't have to work for a corporation. Companies which treat their employees better tend to attract more employees so they can get the best pick. There is a strong incentive for corporations to keep their employees happy even disregarding hiring as disgruntled employees can give the company a bad image or even waste company resources through deliberate action.
This anti-company attitude makes me think you have never been meaningfully employed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2011 12:58 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 350 (605783)
02-22-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by nwr
02-22-2011 1:08 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
nwr writes:
The inefficiencies of government are in public, where they are reported on by the press. The inefficiencies of the private sector are hidden in back rooms.
Then you needed to pay more attention in economics.
Imagine two companies competing for the widget market, each making a widget that is roughly equivalent. These type of goods are called "commodities", examples being petroleum or copper, the significant factor being that they are fungible (buyers don't particularly care who produced it). The company which can produce the widget more efficiently can either sell at a lower cost thereby obtaining greater sales than their competition, or can obtain greater profits than their competition and thus attract more investors due to the greater rate of return. Or they can do both! Everyone continually competes against each other to be more efficient with the prospect of great reward to anyone who can improve their performance.
All of that is extremely open with publicly traded companies baring their books and providing up-to-the-minute reports on stock prices and rate of return. No press report is required, its all public knowledge used on a daily basis for investment decisions.
Now consider a city policeman. It the officer costs the city a certain amount of money to do his job, but could someone do it for less expense? Could the police department be less wasteful, maybe change some policies to be more efficient, or modify its compensation package? Maybe, but how would you ever know? Nobody else is even allowed to *try* to compete and do things better. Its the current government agency by force whether you like it or not. The ultimate monopoly, and it shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 02-22-2011 1:08 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 02-22-2011 2:07 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 350 (605787)
02-22-2011 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by nwr
02-22-2011 2:07 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
nwr writes:
Phage0070 writes:
Imagine two companies competing for the widget market, each making a widget ...
That's a nice little theoretical model. However, I have worked in the private sector and seen gross inefficiencies. I have done business with the private sector (my ISP, for example) and I see gross inefficiencies.
And do you think if they or another company could remove those inefficiencies that they would see greater profits and more business? Do you have ideas of how to do that?
Keep in mind that just because a process tends to weed out inefficiencies and streamline operations, it doesn't guarantee that any given operation you look at is going to be perfect.
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 02-22-2011 2:07 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Son, posted 02-22-2011 9:52 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:29 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 350 (605825)
02-22-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
02-22-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
crashfrog writes:
The most profitable reaction to competition is rent-seeking and regulatory capture, not "efficiency."
Which is why it should be the private sector which is generally not in control of laws and such rather than the public sector which happily and easily regulates and commandeers those things at their whim.
crashfrog writes:
In a perfectly capitalistic and highly competitive market sector, the competition drives the price of a widget down to the marginal cost of producing a single widget, and nobody makes any profit.
Except that everyone working at the company gets paid and all the investors get their expected return on investment. Again it seems you just don't "get" whats going on.
crashfrog writes:
But in most public sector jobs the profit incentives actually run the other way - it's more profitable to deny health care than to provide it,
This is complete and utter bullshit. Building a hospital and employing highly educated and trained medical professionals at great cost and then having them stand around doing fuck-all is the least profitable way to operate. The only time you would deny healthcare is if the cost of treating the ailment was greater than they were willing or able to pay, or if you simply didn't have the capacity to fill the need.
crashfrog writes:
it's more profitable to run selective schools than effective ones
You seem to be denying that there is a market for effective schools (bullshit), or that because a school is selective that it isn't effective (also bullshit).
crashfrog writes:
it's more profitable to run failing prisons than safe and secure ones,
"Failing" in what way? If they can't manage to keep prisoners in then the quality of their service should quickly lead customers to move to their competition; oh wait, if its a public sector job there *are* no competitors are there? Yet more bullshit.
crashfrog writes:
it's more profitable to let houses burn than to put out fires,
Bullshit. If you have a fire engine and crew sitting there you will want to put out fires even if you only break even. And if you can't manage to break even then putting out the fire would be the waste of resources. More bullshit!
crashfrog writes:
it's more profitable to engage in criminality than to oppose it, and so on.
Right, because the one organization that gets the largest chunk of your paycheck isn't a government. Bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 10:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2011 1:34 PM Phage0070 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024