I'm so angry with the U.S. and Chinese governments right now!

Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
The US can't afford to pay more. With a debt to GDP ratio on 300%, the Treasury can't underwrite grand public schemes.
If you're only counting federal debt, it's $21T of debt to ~$20T of US GDP.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
If you're only counting federal debt, it's $21T of debt to ~$20T of US GDP.
Yeah I sure remember the "tea party" having rallies and speeches and all kinds of BS when it was under Obama but now you hear.... Nothing... crickets. You find that odd as I do because now deficits don't matter. I can't figure out why?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
If you're only counting federal debt, it's $21T of debt to ~$20T of US GDP.
Total debt, as this influences the scope of public private partnerships too.

To be precise, the figures I've seen are $21T for the govt, $27T private debt, which totals $48T in debt against a $20T GDP. So it's more like 240% than 300%.

Any way you measure it, how did we ever let it come to this? (Rhetorical question... the answer is stupid decisions by both parties over 30+ years).
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Total debt, as this influences the scope of public private partnerships too.

To be precise, the figures I've seen are $21T for the govt, $27T private debt, which totals $48T in debt against a $20T GDP. So it's more like 248% than 300%.
Only federal debt has anything to do with what the US government or the Fed can do. Where do you come up with these ridiculous economic theories?
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
Only federal debt has anything to do with what the US government or the Fed can do. Where do you come up with these ridiculous economic theories?
You'll see in one my previous posts (#319) I DID mention public private partnerships as becoming the norm for many infrastructure programmes:

Public private partnership seems to be the new model across the Western world because, frankly, various signature projects, foreign wars, etc. have driven us all (not just the US) into difficult financial territory.
You probably live within five miles of a toll road, so it shouldn't be hard for even you to figure out Irv. Or maybe you've been in your troll hut and missed news about companies like SpaceX.

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/capital-projects-infrastructure/library/public-private-partnerships.html

https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/programs-services/p3

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355175-public-private-partnerships-cant-overcome-us-infrastructure-gap-alone

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/05/22/modernizing-infrastructure-policies-to-advance-public-private-partnerships/

Now the other thing to consider is taxation policy. Tell me, how much room do the Feds have to raise taxes for new infrastructure schemes when people are highly leveraged already? The answer is "not much". So personal debt is a second order issue to consider -- and one that guys like JFK didn't have to contend with when he talked about having to raise revenue to pay for the Apollo program (I posted a link to his speech in an earlier post, in case you try to rant about this too).
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Tell me, how much room do the Feds have to raise taxes for new infrastructure schemes when people are highly leveraged already? The answer is "not much".
Taxation is related to personal debt levels? You're making this up as you go.
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
No, but it's constrained by them.

If you try to raise taxes higher than the populace can bear, problems will arise. You'll either:

1. turn large portions of the population into criminals (failure to pay taxes is a federal crime);

2. invite mass insolvency, which will lead to an economic crash;

3. create conditions for peaceful political change (vote the bums out); or

4. invite revolution (as in 1776).

These aren't difficult concepts to wrap your head around, Irv. It's an issue of balance.

Which reminds me, solved that car problem yet?
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
No, but it's constrained by them.

If you try to raise taxes higher than the populace can bear, problems will arise. You'll either:

1. turn large portions of the population into criminals (failure to pay taxes is a federal crime);

2. invite mass insolvency, which will lead to an economic crash;

3. create conditions for peaceful political change (vote the bums out); or

4. invite revolution (as in 1776).

These aren't difficult concepts to wrap your head around, Irv. It's an issue of balance.

Which reminds me, solved that car problem yet?
I always find it amusing when you guys complain about how high your taxes are.
Tax revenue to GDP ratio:
Canada: 31.7%
OECD Av:34.8%
USA: 26%

Of course, the devil is in the details, but still, few people outside the USA would consider it a highly taxed country. It looks like the Boston Tea Party instilled a national mindset that taxes are evil, by nature.

Back in the 1990's, Canada went through it's own debt crisis. The debt to GDP ratio had reached about 64% and the $CDN was worth 64 US cents (they started calling it the "Northern Peso). We were an object of pity and scorn in foreign financial journals. The federal government (a Liberal government, by the way) slashed spending and almost nothing was spared - especially defense, as it isn't the sacred cow that it is in the US and the cold war was winding down. The debt was wrestled down to about 31% of GDP, which is where it stands right now. So, it can be done, if there is a will.

So, let's look at the US federal debt as a percentage of GDP....holy $hit! It's over 100%!! And, you guys don't even have universal health care! Drunken sailor much? Or, could you be - heaven help us - undertaxed? Maybe not the plebs, but maybe the rich could chip in a bit more?

What are you guys spending your tax dollars on? First thing that comes to mind is GW2*, which was completely - perhaps criminally - unjustified, as far as I'm concerned. How many billions of dollars have been sunk into the Middle East and South Asia since 2002? Not to mention the destruction and lives lost. Which leads me to perhaps the only utterance to come from the POTUS's mouth with which I agree: that the rest of the western alliance are free riders on US defense. He's absolutely right. Start pulling assets out of Europe. When they have to face the Russians alone, they'll get the hint that they need to pony up some more. I'm not sure what can be done to convince the Canadian government to take defense seriously. Maybe if China starts rattling her sabres at us, we might smarten up. I doubt it though, as a threat to Canada - depending on its nature - would usually be deemed a threat to the US. So, that's one area you could cut back on - defense.

Then, you could get with the 20th century - never mind 21st - and institute a universal health care system. You currently spend twice as much on health care, per capita, than Australia, Canada, France and the UK. Sure, there would be a commensurate increase in taxes, but private insurance premiums plummet, so you still end up with more money in your pocket.

Oh, and stop throwing so many people in prison. It's counterproductive. Unless, of course, Americans are more genetically pre-disposed to participating in criminal activity, which I doubt.

I don't know if you actually read the article, so I'll include the link again for you, or anyone else, who might find it of interest. Public spending on make-work projects is what most people picture when they think of the New Deal. However, the schemes to foster more private investment look like they may have had more widespread and long term effects. Just one example - the electrification of rural areas - which private utilities couldn't be bothered with, as they considered it unprofitable. From the article:

"As late as 1935, 90 percent of rural homes had no electricity. By 1940, 40 percent of rural America had electricity—a rise of 30 percent in only a few years. Ten years later, in 1950, 90 percent had electricity."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/surprising-truth-about-roosevelts-new-deal/584209/

Oops! I'm commenting on American policies again, where it's none of my business. Sorry about that.

*While Canada didn't - and rightfully so - participate in the invasion of Iraq, we sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO "peace-keeping" force, which ended up being a war-fighting mission.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I always find it amusing when you guys complain about how high your taxes are.
Tax revenue to GDP ratio:
Canada: 31.7%
OECD Av:34.8%
USA: 26%
For the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) the tax revenue to GDP ratio is from ca 45% to 50%. Those countries seems to do pretty well.

Of course, the devil is in the details, but still, few people outside the USA would consider it a highly taxed country. It looks like the Boston Tea Party instilled a national mindset that taxes are evil, by nature.
The US citizen still pays for various services but not just via taxes, but by exorbitant private fees of various kinds that many cannot afford. An example is the US health care system that is very expensive but have poor health outcome for the general population.

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

So, let's look at the US federal debt as a percentage of GDP....holy $hit! It's over 100%!! And, you guys don't even have universal health care! Drunken sailor much? Or, could you be - heaven help us - undertaxed? Maybe not the plebs, but maybe the rich could chip in a bit more?
It is important to note that the US federal debt is issued in their own currency, in contrast some other countries that have large debt in foreign currency and thus far more vulnerable.

Also about a third of the US federal debt is intergovernmental debt, that is debt US federal government has to itself.

Which leads me to perhaps the only utterance to come from the POTUS's mouth with which I agree: that the rest of the western alliance are free riders on US defense. He's absolutely right. Start pulling assets out of Europe. When they have to face the Russians alone, they'll get the hint that they need to pony up some more.
I'm not so sure that a militarized EU competing with US as a military global power is such a good thing. There is an old joke that NATO was created to keep USA in, Russia out and Germany down.

Then, you could get with the 20th century - never mind 21st - and institute a universal health care system. You currently spend twice as much on health care, per capita, than Australia, Canada, France and the UK. Sure, there would be a commensurate increase in taxes, but private insurance premiums plummet, so you still end up with more money in your pocket.
Exactly, and on top of that with worse health outcome.

Oh, and stop throwing so many people in prison. It's counterproductive. Unless, of course, Americans are more genetically pre-disposed to participating in criminal activity, which I doubt.
US prison system is larger than the Soviet GULAGS was.

Thanks for the link!

Oops! I'm commenting on American policies again, where it's none of my business. Sorry about that.
Yeah, it's a bit sad that an American (?) echoes the same sentiment found by the leadership in countries like Russia, China, Turkey, Arab states,... Does he not believe in free speech?

Edit: I'll add that about 70% of Americans support Medicare-for-all according to cnbc report last autumn. I've read that on many issues the American population is far more to the left than Congress.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
For the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) the tax revenue to GDP ratio is from ca 45% to 50%. Those countries seems to do pretty well.
In comparison to the US, the nordic countries are more like cities than countries. Only Sweden has a population above six million, and Sweden's is about ten million. So comparing them to size and diversity of the US population and economy isn't valid. They're like affluent suburbs that wouldn't exist without the big cities. And Norway's and Finland's affluence are substantially based on oil wealth, which skews everything. These are toy economies compared to that of the US.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
In comparison to the US, the nordic countries are more like cities than countries. Only Sweden has a population above six million, and Sweden's is about ten million. So comparing them to size and diversity of the US population and economy isn't valid. They're like affluent suburbs that wouldn't exist without the big cities. And Norway's and Finland's affluence are substantially based on oil wealth, which skews everything. These are toy economies compared to that of the US.
Isn't that a bit defeatist? You really don't think that those successes can't be scaled up?
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
In comparison to the US, the nordic countries are more like cities than countries. Only Sweden has a population above six million, and Sweden's is about ten million. So comparing them to size and diversity of the US population and economy isn't valid. They're like affluent suburbs that wouldn't exist without the big cities. And Norway's and Finland's affluence are substantially based on oil wealth, which skews everything. These are toy economies compared to that of the US.
Well, you have France at 48%, Germany at 40%, UK at 35%, so in any case far more than US.

Taxation in 2017: Tax-to-GDP ratio up to 40.2% in EU
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Well, you have France at 48%, Germany at 40%, UK at 35%, so in any case far more than US.

Taxation in 2017: Tax-to-GDP ratio up to 40.2% in EU
Taxation is a different thing. Of those economies, only Germany can be considered successful by US standards, and Germany is an export-driven economy that sits pretty under the US security umbrella.

High taxation is not a model to be proud of. It is indicative of a lack of efficiency, IMO. Modeling the US after Europe is not exactly a good idea.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I always find it amusing when you guys complain about how high your taxes are.
Tax revenue to GDP ratio:
Canada: 31.7%
OECD Av:34.8%
USA: 26%

Of course, the devil is in the details, but still, few people outside the USA would consider it a highly taxed country. It looks like the Boston Tea Party instilled a national mindset that taxes are evil, by nature.
47% of taxpayers pay nothing, some get a refund because they make so little and if we're going to be forced to accept "immigrants who'll do the work Americans aren't willing to", it's not going to be possible to tax anyone but the middle class and the wealthy. How fast would you want your taxes to increase, and how much of an increase can you withstand? Where's the tipping point, for you?

The Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxation, it was about the colonies not being represented in Parliament and it wasn't only about the tax on tea. If you think it was only because of a tax on tea or stamps, read something about how the colonists were forced to adhere to the Crown's regulations on commerce.

IIRC, you're Canadian- from the Americans who fought for our freedom- "You're welcome". If not for the Revolution, I'm very sure that you would have had your own revolution to learn about in school.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Isn't that a bit defeatist? You really don't think that those successes can't be scaled up?
Are you even aware of the difference in our population demographics? I'm not saying anyone is inferior, but there's almost no way to say that the US population is similar to that of any other country.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Are you even aware of the difference in our population demographics? I'm not saying anyone is inferior, but there's almost no way to say that the US population is similar to that of any other country.
USA as a whole? Probably not as there are too many backwater states that compares to Eastern Europe. California, though, is affluent, have a well-educated population as well as a large and very successful economy. I think that nobody would be surprised if California was to introduce single-payer health care.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I think that nobody would be surprised if California was to introduce single-payer health care.
Very unlikely, IMO. For one thing, California is home to a massive health care industry at so many levels, and most would fight the notion. There are also legal issues regarding federal subsidies, and problems with interstate travel for CA residents that would have to be worked out.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
USA as a whole? Probably not as there are too many backwater states that compares to Eastern Europe. California, though, is affluent, have a well-educated population as well as a large and very successful economy. I think that nobody would be surprised if California was to introduce single-payer health care.
You really need to look at who lives in California, whether they're citizens, can read/write and who pays taxes. Go there! Find out for yourself! Go to any Home Depot or other home center- I don't think it's the same as it was, but when I have been there, there was ALWAYS a group of people who were looking for work and trust me, they weren't California citizens. If they were, the Police wouldn't see them scatter as soon as the patrol cars rolled up. CA has ~25K illegals in their prisons- how much tax do THEY pay?

You want poverty? Go to California- they have over a million homeless people. Wiki shows that the state has a population of more than 39 million- that's more than ALL OF Canada.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Very unlikely, IMO. For one thing, California is home to a massive health care industry at so many levels, and most would fight the notion. There are also legal issues regarding federal subsidies, and problems with interstate travel for CA residents that would have to be worked out.
Entrenched industry, be it health care or not, is certainly a challenge but that can be solved as it has been multiple times before. California, along with a few other US states, have shown a way to go forward on various issues in USA (and elsewhere!).

As for border crossing legal issues for health care and payment: Is that really an issue that can not be solved in USA? We managed that in EU decades ago, despite our considerate differences in health care systems.

Then there is the elephant in the room: Single-payer health care that has an enormous support in the US population in the form of Medicare-for-all. As I understand it, "Obama-care" is essentially a variation of Massachusetts health care reform ("Romney-care") as the Republican answer to single-payer health care. How did that work out? Awful?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top