Budget deficit almost $1 Trillion (1 Viewer)

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,696
Reaction score
10,570
Offline
With a strong economy, we still have an exploding deficit. And GDP growth has slowed back down to about where it was under Obama's final years in office. Hard to say the tax cuts were worth it.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Receipts up 4% spending up 8%


What is weird is that the only times, since ww2, we have seen deficits this high relative to gdp has been immediately following a recession.
 

jboss

All-Pro
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,306
Reaction score
1,039
Age
31
Offline
Weird we still refer to economic strength in purely finance terms. Yes the stock market has been seeing gains. In no small part due to more aggresive investing which the tax cuts helped. But to me that isn't necessarily indicative of a "strong economy". Wages are still far from what they should be and the ones really gaining anything are stockholders and investors. I really hate that's how we gauge how well the economy is.
 

The Moose

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
2,938
Reaction score
1,893
Offline
Weird we still refer to economic strength in purely finance terms. Yes the stock market has been seeing gains. In no small part due to more aggresive investing which the tax cuts helped. But to me that isn't necessarily indicative of a "strong economy". Wages are still far from what they should be and the ones really gaining anything are stockholders and investors. I really hate that's how we gauge how well the economy is.

Exactly right!

With the change in corporate taxes gave the stock market a huge jump because now corporations were buying back their stock with the tax windfalls.

So yeah the stock market looks great.

Your uncle just gave them a ton and they invested in themselves not factories, jobs, or anything else that trickle down is supposed to do. Trickle down is bullshirt just ask the state of Kansas.

So now our grandchildren are gonna pay for that also.

The whole economy doing so well is smoke and mirrors.
 

Eeyore

Flucifer
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
16,790
Reaction score
8,854
Age
49
Location
Ersetu
Offline
We need to stop defining the economy by the performance of the stock market.

Regular people don't live off of dividends.

Let's look at wages.

And let's stop the garbage measurement of "median household income. "

Let's try "median wage per hour."

Let's start defining the cost of living differently as well.

Rather than defining it by how much the price of a small appliance has increased, lets define it by how much rent increased. And food, and clothing, education, utilities, etc.

All of the measurements that we see in the news are cooked to make things appear to be better than they are.
 
OP
UncleTrvlingJim

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,696
Reaction score
10,570
Offline
Receipts up 4% spending up 8%


What is weird is that the only times, since ww2, we have seen deficits this high relative to gdp has been immediately following a recession.
I have that receipts are up by about 3% and spending up 7%, but the point is pretty much the same.

So, I'm not opposed to deficits, even large ones. I just need to see that it's going to something that will build longer term benefits. Running deficits in a recession is good to prop up the economy. I'm fine with deficits in a good economy to build infrastructure that will benefit the economy over the longer term. And so on.

Do we think we got that?
 

TheRealJRad

The Artist Formerly Known as AgentJRad
Staff member
Tech-Admin
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
10,717
Reaction score
11,996
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
And let's stop the garbage measurement of "median household income. "

Let's try "median wage per hour."
Alright, help me out here.

If median annual income is (just to make numbers easy) 100k, then that’s 50/hour.

If median per hour is 50, that doesn’t mean 100k unless you’re working 40. So wouldn’t that not be as accurate?

I’m not exactly captain math, so what am I missing?
 

Charlie Brizzown

Used to fish
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
3,831
Reaction score
5,157
Location
San Diego, CA
Offline
Alright, help me out here.

If median annual income is (just to make numbers easy) 100k, then that’s 50/hour.

If median per hour is 50, that doesn’t mean 100k unless you’re working 40. So wouldn’t that not be as accurate?

I’m not exactly captain math, so what am I missing?
Its likely to be a better representation.
 
OP
UncleTrvlingJim

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,696
Reaction score
10,570
Offline
Alright, help me out here.

If median annual income is (just to make numbers easy) 100k, then that’s 50/hour.

If median per hour is 50, that doesn’t mean 100k unless you’re working 40. So wouldn’t that not be as accurate?

I’m not exactly captain math, so what am I missing?
I think the point he's making is that it's not necessarily a better economy if the only way we can make more money is by working more hours (ie, sure I'm making 20% more this year, but I'm working 20% more hours).

I get what he's saying, but I also think an improving economy can indicate more full time work for people. For example if I was a part time employee but then the economy improved and my boss made me a full time employee... even if my hourly rate stayed the same, I think this is still a decent indicator of an improving economy.
 
OP
UncleTrvlingJim

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,696
Reaction score
10,570
Offline
Receipts up 4% spending up 8%


What is weird is that the only times, since ww2, we have seen deficits this high relative to gdp has been immediately following a recession.
Another way of looking at it is that revenue is down to about 16.5% of GDP and spending is up to 20.5% of GDP. We've agreed on this in the past that generally things seem to work well when revenue and spending is about 18.5 to 19.5% of GDP.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Another way of looking at it is that revenue is down to about 16.5% of GDP and spending is up to 20.5% of GDP. We've agreed on this in the past that generally things seem to work well when revenue and spending is about 18.5 to 19.5% of GDP.
Good point.

And I agree about deficits. In this economy deficits of 4-5% of gdp would be acceptable if we were making large investments in infrastructure that would likely pay dividends into the future.
 

Eeyore

Flucifer
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
16,790
Reaction score
8,854
Age
49
Location
Ersetu
Offline
I think the point he's making is that it's not necessarily a better economy if the only way we can make more money is by working more hours (ie, sure I'm making 20% more this year, but I'm working 20% more hours).

I get what he's saying, but I also think an improving economy can indicate more full time work for people. For example if I was a part time employee but then the economy improved and my boss made me a full time employee... even if my hourly rate stayed the same, I think this is still a decent indicator of an improving economy.

You're on the right track. I'll add that the most common measurement that strong economy pundits like to point out is "median household income." This isn't what one person makes per year. It's the income of everybody who works in the house. In fact, it assumes a two income household. It's just under $62,000. As you pointed out, it doesn't factor in how many hours are worked, how many jobs, or even how many people are working. Such a house might have 5,000+ hours worked. Even in a two income house working 40 hours per week that's under $15 per hour.

 
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
6,757
Reaction score
7,499
Location
incognito
Offline
I think the point he's making is that it's not necessarily a better economy if the only way we can make more money is by working more hours (ie, sure I'm making 20% more this year, but I'm working 20% more hours).

I get what he's saying, but I also think an improving economy can indicate more full time work for people. For example if I was a part time employee but then the economy improved and my boss made me a full time employee... even if my hourly rate stayed the same, I think this is still a decent indicator of an improving economy.
In addition to your scenario, there could be people who were working 40 hours a week at a stagnant wage, so they had to take an additional second job so they could keep up with the increase in their rent, food, transportation, energy, healthcare and so on. In that case, they didn't suddenly get an opportunity of more work they didn't previously have. They were forced to work more hours, because of wage stagnation and the rising costs of basic needs.

Then you have the possibility that maybe someone in the household had to start working so the household could keep up.

If we just look at median household income, we don't get any meaningful insight into how and why median household income is going up. It's like going to a doctor with a cough. The cough indicates something in your health has changed, but the cough alone is not enough to diagnose what has changed or how to treat it.

I think we'd get a lot more insight into the actual economic health of the general population by knowing the median individual income and the median individual wage, than just the median household income.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,031
Reaction score
39,562
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I have that receipts are up by about 3% and spending up 7%, but the point is pretty much the same.

So, I'm not opposed to deficits, even large ones. I just need to see that it's going to something that will build longer term benefits. Running deficits in a recession is good to prop up the economy. I'm fine with deficits in a good economy to build infrastructure that will benefit the economy over the longer term. And so on.

Do we think we got that?
Infrastructure was the one thing I was hoping would come to be. That would also be a large economic boom. However, when the Trump Admin decided they'd raise the funds, by telling the States and private equity to fund it, I knew it was dead.

It's essentially an unfunded mandate.

As usual, we squander our opportunities.

Deficits only matter when we're talking about social safety programs helping the poor or those who can't work (temporary or permanent), but they don't matter when we talk about the Military, and other large programs. Then, we pay all this money for the most powerful military in the world, and now we also don't want to deploy them for any peace keeping or security operations.

Why not just cut the military budget in half and bring them all back? let the rest of the world stabilize the world and prevent the outbreak of wars... oh..
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom