- #1
- 1,995
- 7
So what are the US PF'ers thoughts on this.
Do you fear for the US's economical future, or do you think it's bs?
Last edited by a moderator:
1. The metaphorical "house" backing up the debt is not only future production and income, it is what people in the future will believe how much income can be produced in THEIR future. And so on.Galileo said:
So what are the US PF'ers thoughts on this.
Do you fear for the US's economical future, or do you think it's bs?
Or not so last resort!EnumaElish said:it also has the power to print money as a last resort.
mgb_phys said:Look at it from China's point of view - they slave (literally ;-) to produce $20 dvd players and Barbie dolls and America pays them in worthless pieces of green paper.
W3pcq said:My main point is that the more foreign imports and less exports, the less money we are worth as a nation because people who make stuff here will sell less, less tax money, less employment, less currency recirculation etc. It is always better for an economy to buy local whether it be on the county scale or the state or the National scale.
In contrast corporations gain profits buying non local and they siphon off our economic means of stability.
Not necessarily. You buy something in a US store that is made in China, most of the price tag goes to paying US store workers, rent, utilities, advertising - the amount sent to the manufacturer is quite small. You could regard it as the company merely subcontracting the unimportant part of the process to the cheapest bidder.W3pcq said:Well I know that personally I can benefit from buying cheaper in China, but the economy is hurt because my money is not circulated back into our economy right?
Some have surpluses, which pay for others' deficits.t-money said:All nations have a trade defecit
Originally Posted by W3pcq
Well I know that personally I can benefit from buying cheaper in China, but the economy is hurt because my money is not circulated back into our economy right?
I don't really agree with that. If a publicly traded company is making massive profits, why shouldn't the said profits go to the people who are creating it? Better for (the economy) that the money is back in the workforce rather than tied up in the company?Amp1 said:My thought is that our economy is top-heavy which causes much of the instability though other factors are at work.
By top-heavy I mean that the upper-management staff in a lot of firms is paid enormously disproportionately high compensation. I understand that a CEO, CIO, COO, etc, have great responsibilities and should receive fair compensation for their effort.
I draw the line though when their compensation is as obscene is it has become. In all fairness, I think the compensation should be no more than a few thousand times the lowest paid worker. The problem is that recently (the last fifty years or so) it has been a few hundred thousand or million times the lowest paid worker.
That is a major reason the circulation of money doesn't go back into the economy to multiply and stimulate growth. (IMHO) Why? The huge blocks of value the top 5% (in the US) control is placed into investment instruments which are basically static. I understand that these instruments are dynamic in that they grow in value or generate wealth, but they are also static in the sense that if some percentage of the value was distributed to non-management staff you can see that economic multipliers and consumer purchases would work to create economic growth. The value would be spread over a larger base which I’m sure would stabilize rather than hinder growth unlike the top-heavy structure that we have today.
I draw the line though when their compensation is as obscene is it has become. In all fairness, I think the compensation should be no more than a few thousand times the lowest paid worker. The problem is that recently (the last fifty years or so) it has been a few hundred thousand or million times the lowest paid worker.
Anttech said:I don't really agree with that. If a publicly traded company is making massive profits, why shouldn't the said profits go to the people who are creating it? Better for (the economy) that the money is back in the workforce rather than tied up in the company?
Right, so it is.. :rofl: Communists are always ensuring through there political policies that, for example, City workers are being paid massive bonus for creating huge amounts of wealth in the finance sector, because commies know that if you dont, then these highly skilled people will leave the company.That is standard-issue Communist thought. A corporation's only loyalty is to its shareholders. It pays the workers. It's a simple concept. I pay you, you work for me.
It's as big a problem for US cars today as it was 30 years ago.mgb_phys said:Insisting on buying locally produced can actually have a negative effect on the economy, manufacturers don't have to improve the product, don't have to make efficency gains, don't have to invest in R+D (look at US cars in the 60s or British cars in the 70s ).
The only way to get numbers like that is to mis-analyze a Microstoft-type situation. Just assuming Bill Gates is worth $20 Billion and the lowest paid worker earns $20,000 a year gets a ratio of a million to one. But that overlooks some obvious and important things:Amp1 said:I draw the line though when their compensation is as obscene is it has become. In all fairness, I think the compensation should be no more than a few thousand times the lowest paid worker. The problem is that recently (the last fifty years or so) it has been a few hundred thousand or million times the lowest paid worker.
Anttech said:Right, so it is.. :rofl: Communists are always ensuring through there political policies that, for example, City workers are being paid massive bonus for creating huge amounts of wealth in the finance sector, because commies know that if you dont, then these highly skilled people will leave the company.
The standard of thought on this Forum is very low these days.
The extremely simple "I pay you, you work for me" smacks there much of communism indoctrination.
What about those corporations that pay workers partially with share options?
Are those corporations Communist/Marxist? Or are they Marxist-Socialist?
Or is it all part of a vast capitalist conspiracy?
On a more serious note, I'd venture to guess that people's stock ownership percentage is at an all-time high in the U.S. (directly or indirectly, e.g. through investment funds).
That's somewhat ironic, but it also shows the adaptability of capitalism.WheelsRCool said:So the natural tendency in a capitalist society is that a great many of the corporations will end up being publicly-owned.
Nah, trial lawyers beat them out easily for the top spot. Lawyers who filed the class action against Blockbuster Video: $9.25 million. The wronged customers: $20. Lawyers took $2.8 Billion of the $11.3B Florida tobacco settlement.russ_watters said:...The worst "offenders" in income inequality today are the financial companies that give multimillion dollar bonuses. But a $20 million bonus vs a $20k employee is still only a ratio of 1000 to 1.
EnumaElish said:That's somewhat ironic, but it also shows the adaptability of capitalism.
I hear your point about incentives, and for all I know it may work for startups, but from a financial diversification point of view, buying your company's stock is putting all your eggs in one basket.
You work for them, and you (partially) own them (or have the right to, through options).
If they go bankrupt, you (a) are out of work, and (b) have just experienced a drastic capital loss. This is an extreme example, but it demonstrates what I mean by "having all eggs in one basket."
fourier jr said:I don't know that the US is literally going bankrupt, but Bush has definitely screwed over the country. Apparently the debt is double what it was before he took office, and that will probably be used as a justification for more privatization. I doubt that the recent tax cut plan will do anything, since it will only give people more money to buy Chinese products, if they choose to buy anything at all. A better plan would have been to initiate a bunch of major infrastructure & public works projects, like what China, Canada & many other countries are doing these days. Like what's listed here:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/16/us_infrastructure_crumbling/7237/
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=250042
That's what the original New Deal was all about wasn't it?
US Bankruptcy is a legal process that allows individuals or businesses to declare that they are unable to pay their debts. It involves filing a petition with the bankruptcy court and going through a series of steps, including liquidating assets or creating a repayment plan, to address the debts.
Filing for bankruptcy can have a significant negative impact on your credit score. It will stay on your credit report for up to 10 years and can lower your score by 200 points or more. This can make it difficult to obtain credit in the future and may result in higher interest rates.
There are two main types of bankruptcy available for individuals: Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 involves liquidating assets to pay off debts, while Chapter 13 involves creating a repayment plan to pay off debts over a period of 3-5 years.
It depends on the type of bankruptcy you file for and the laws in your state. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, some assets may be exempt from liquidation, such as your primary residence or a certain amount of equity in a car. In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can usually keep all of your assets as long as you stick to the repayment plan.
The best way to avoid bankruptcy is to create a budget and stick to it, prioritize paying off high-interest debts, and seek help from a credit counseling agency if needed. It's also important to communicate with your creditors and try to negotiate a repayment plan or settlement before considering bankruptcy as an option.