/sci/ - Science & Math

I actually want the dollar to collapse. Would be terrible in the beginning but would be amazing later on.

>Dollar collapses
>Suddenly goods for less money
Oh you USA.

The US can raise their taxes a lot without much impact, it should be easy to fix the deficit.

>>3373223
This wont just affect the US dollar, it will affect many other countries they deal with (europe and friends). But yeah this would cause the dollar to crash pretty hard,

>>3373236
full retard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

>>3373236
"without much impact" == turn every city into Harlem

Just close tax loopholes for the rich.

The middle class actually has a higher effective tax rate than the upper class due to the latter's use of lawyers and accountants.

Fucking economic magnets.

>>3373251
It wouldn't be enough to make a dent in the debt, you have to cut something.

see

>>3373241

>>3373245
Because why?

>>3373251

bingo. what this dude said. what we dont realize, is that taxes used to be MUCH higher.... as in, in the 90%tile

>>3373268

ronald regan and woodrow wilson single handedly destroyed this country.

>>3373260

Well you need to get rid of the bush tax cuts; thats 25% of the deficit. Then you need to stop the wars. Finally you need to recoup your losses from the bailout and end the moral hazard that allows banks to be 'too big to fail'.

Cutting social programs will lead to a poorer lower class and as a result less aggregate demand in the economy. In a recession, this is the last thing you want.

>>3373268
>>3373274
>blaming reagan for what is happening today.

>>3373263
because raise taxes => people have less money => they turn into niggers

>>3373274
bush alone added 5 Trillion dollars which is around 36% of the debt

>>3373280
>raising taxes during a recession
Even if you did all those things it wouldn't make a dent in the debt.

Aggregate demand doesn't do shit except fund a retarded debt based economy.

>Cutting social programs
It would also free up money to make jobs.

>>3373302
don't you think it's a little evil to take pension money or support money for veterans (you know, the guys that actually fought in all those wars)

>>3373288

do you know ANYTHING about what he did to this country??? something called financial deregulation.

and i love how you just ignore the woodrow wilson part of my comment and focus on regan. but i guess because wilson was a democrat you let that one slip by. fucking faggot.

>>3373296
Through government spending, he added a prescription benefit to medicare which made it hike up a lot. Increased foreign aid and started a war.

Don't Keynesian like war it supposedly got us out of the depression and thats when we had the highest tax rate along with food rationing.

I don't think US will default, but the issus isn' that.. It's that debt reduction measures will put brakes on growth.
It's inevitable.

ITT: RETARDS

you murrikans have no problem spending 423148375 billion $ on pointless wars while you, regular people, OPPOSE taxing the rich multinational companies?

boy you're stupid

>>3373311
>something called financial deregulation.

So what, you actually think deregulation cause the housing collapse?

We should raise the minimum wage to $50 dollars this will boost aggregate demand.

>>3373338
That would just create a shit ton of unemployment

>>3373338
that would just make the US dollar cousin with the Zimbabwean dollar

>economic system coming apart at every seam

This is highly entertaining.

>>3373302
>It would also free up money to make jobs.

The already government hemorrhages money to make jobs, it's called the military.

>>3373321

Seriously? You're going the full denial route?

every american will become a billionaire

>>3373241
Watched that, and it's flawed as fuck.

he only calculates INCOME, and completely ignore CAPTIAL GAINS, which is where the corporations have all their wealth hidden.

And the majority of them DON'T PAY A SINGLE PENNY.

>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2002
>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2003
>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2004
>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2006
>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2007
>Bush raises debt ceiling in 2008
>Bush raises debt ceiling again in 2008
>Obama raising debt ceiling
>FUCKING SOCIALIST SCUM

>>3373390
Dealio with it

>>3373360
That made me laugh pretty hard
Jesus Zimbabwe, get your shit together

A US default would actually result in deflation.

>>3373360
thats still 264 million USD

>>3373390

Dont' watch this vid >>3373241

>Fuckin' leftists, leftists, leftists
Why do these people have to ruin any arguement they might have by blaming communism?

>>3373321

YES DAMMIT.

Please tell me you're trolling. Do you seriously not understand the concept of 'moral hazard', where banks become too big to fail, then being legally ALLOWED to fail with no risk, through a lack of regulations explicitly preventing this shit?

>>3373321
Deregulation is the main reason the US is in this shit.
That's why liberalism doesn't work, and in the bigger picture, capitalism either.

>>3373360
>>3373360
>>3373360
>>3373360

noob step aside, yugoslav dinar up in this bitch with 500bn banknote

>>3373447
cataclysmically gigantic sovereign debt. reason: private enterprises.

LOL NO!

>>3373455
nice denial you got there.

I just don't really like him repeating "THE NEW WORLD ORDER WILL COME" all the time.

>>3373447

The fuck are you talking about...
The US is screwed because Amerifats import too much from China (partly due to the shitty artificial exchange rate) and they cannot into savings. People being retarded and greedy is what's brought that country into debt and it could've been prevented via better government monitoring (but not necessarily stiffening regulations).

>>3373464

you know at this point i am really wondering why all the hate and fear
i mean the average person in a world of 7 billion is insignificant anyway and will never hold real power
and it's not like the current 'order' is doing such a great job, let's see what the new guys can bring

>>3373501
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWgksGGPQ0

>>3373491
>People being retarded and greedy is what's brought that country into debt
But capitalism doesn't work if people aren't greedy, it depends on people spending exorbitant amounts of money on things they don't need.

>>3373527
Addendum to my original post: Replace 'greedy' by 'too greedy' and read it as being a mixture of being both 'greedy' and 'retarded' at the same time.

It can also be possible to be greedy, but take the medium/long-rung into consideration (hence preventing the recent shitstorm)

>large-scale armed conflict
problem solved

what, did we actually think the thing in the middle east, the killing of bin laden, and the respective ties to pakistan and the neighboring region was all a coincidence?

In all honestly, I'm glad Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling.

Our choices are a) raise debt ceiling and fall further into debt and turn into Africa within 10 years or b) stop debt, though go into third world conditions for a few years until we wind up like Nazi Germany except 100x bigger

And this way, Republicans will be blamed for the horrible market conditions, complete housing breakdown, skyrocketing prices in places like Wal-Mart, and tons of other things that have taken far too long.

But no. Instead Republicans will probably instead raise the debt ceiling in return for another 5 trillion for the military no questions asked, and Obama will sign it because he's a retard

>>3373491
An economy where unlimited profit is expected from limited resources is fundamentally wrong.
China is just taking advantage of your shitty situation created by your inherently failed system.

>>3373537
you remember how nazi germany turned out?

Of course they're going to raise the debt ceiling. And they're going to keep raising it, as nobody wants to actually fix the problem.

The real damage this does, however, is makes people lose confidence in the USA. It makes Americans even lose confidence in their "great" country. The government's going to keep borrowing until they've made their country hate them.

>>3373541

Not sure why you're calling me an American, when I'm living on the other side of the pond.
Resources are not limitless, but they sure as hell aren't very limited; rich countries have been making a transition away from manufacturing to services for a long time now.
Also, China is abusing the US' shitty situation by.... switching to the exact same system the US is using?
Sure, makes perfect sense.

>>3373549
Nah, the retarded patriotism enforced by the corrupted media will always keep the americans happy with their situation, no matter what.
Until the bankers and CEO go to exile and civil war takes place.

>>3373501
because "new world order" is mainly spread by conspiracy theory nuts.

>>3373537

>People living a more modest life
>Price elasticity goes up
>Implying firms will want to raise prices, instead of lower them.

Derp.

>>3373553
I assumed you were american, sorry.
If China is switching to USA system (which i doubt, but i'm going to assume for the sake of debate), it's just a matter of time until China falls over the same conditions as today USA.

>>3373565

No offense taken.
Well, I'd say we still have a few decades to go before *some* (but not many) resources will truly grow scarce (from the papers I've read about it). Also keep in mind that the estimates of rich countries' population sizes imply that we've really crossed the long-term equilibrium. My country, for instance, is expected to shrink from roughly 17 million to around 10. As countries grow richer, their populations start to dwindle. Hopefully this will also apply to China (although it already does so artificially, to some extent) and India, and we'll be able to live under conditions that are easily sustainable in the long-run.

Here's another educational video guys!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0

>>3373556
Oh there will always be flag-waving idiots too blind to see the country falling down around them.
But I'm American, and I see my attitude toward my country reflected more and more in my fellow Americans, especially the younger generation. The confidence is waning.

>>3373580
>populations will fall
>implying people who pop out a dozen kids will not become evolutionarily advantageous
You've never seen Mexicans have you

>>3373583
>evolution advantaged
>in anything less than thousands of generations

What the fuck am I reading?

>>3373580
But demographic reduction works only for rich countrys, which are a minority in the world.
Unless we make a system which can put every country (and abolish nationalism in the process) in the same socioecomomic conditions (or at least the mayority, in the short term), the population will stil grow and the resources will scarce more.
For a sustainable population we need a sustainable economy, and capitalism have demonstrated over and over it isn't up for it.

>>3373590
>takes more than one generation for the genetics of a population to be different
>wtfamireading.jpg

>>3373593

>(...) only applies to rich countres (...)
And are the HPAEs not swiftly becoming rich countries? The concept of opportunity cost and kids being inferior goods suggests that countries that make up 1/3rd of the world population will become smaller eventually.

>Unless we make a system which can put every country (and abolish nationalism in the process) in the same socioecomomic conditions (or at least the mayority, in the short term) (...)

I, too, would like to see a world like in Star Trek, but that's not a process that can be gone through very rapidly. The formation of, for instance, the EU has led to a decrease in nationalism as far as I'm aware. It's a slow process, though.

>>3373614
But you are focusing only in Asia man, what about the failing countrys of Europe (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland)? the poor countrys of South America (Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay)? the whole Central America? the failing USA? almost every country in Africa? Not even Asia has all rich countrys (the USA invaded middle east for example).
Those compose at least half the world's population that will increase over the next decades.

>>3373634

Good point; I should read into those countries (i.e., South American countries) a bit more. I've never really focused on them, but as far as I'm aware the BRIC countries are doing quite well too (and are quite large). I've got a large dataset about various variables of the entire world for the last 4 decades, so I guess I should browse through them.
European countries are in financial trouble, but this will not result in some sudden medieval standards of living, even if they default. Their shitty situation is largely caused by moronic fiscal policy and lack of monitoring and transparency (the latter of which is probably one of the largest contributors to the existence of recessions).

Right, I should really go take a shower now. I've been posting on /sci/ for two hours now while sitting on the shitter now, because you guys decided to post about the field of Economics!

>>3373634
>>3373650

What is being missed here is that it's not the wealth of a country which is lowering birth rates but the improvements in education and healthcare which have come with wealth.

Establish planned parenthood along with a high child survival rate throughout the world and statistically population growth will fall.

>>3373662

>What is being missed here is that it's not the wealth of a country which is lowering birth rates but the improvements in education and healthcare which have come with wealth.

>Establish planned parenthood along with a high child survival rate throughout the world and statistically population growth will fall.

That reasoning makes little sense in my view. Keep in mind that birth rates are not the same as population growth. People decide on getting fewer children, because the have to sacrifice their increasingly valuable time to raise kids (which can be seen as either a burden or something pleasant). Rising opportunity costs are what drive people's decisions and ultimately population growth.

Why am I still sitting on this damned toilet...

HEY DUMBFUCKS

the debt ceiling gets increased every fucking year. its only an issue because faux news + republicans are pretending its an issue so they can have talking points. obama did the exact same thing. dumb retarded faggots like you equate national debt with your credit card debt and then think they know what the problems is. you don't. thats the first step to understanding this cluster fuck economy. realize you don't understand shit.

>>3373673
What actually lowers population is the planned parenthood portion of that, it gives people the ability to avoid making kids without having to abstain from the craving to have sex.

The survival rate is a protection against the fear that one's child might die and there'd be no one to pass what ever you might have on to them.

It's basically a(n almost) guarantee that a person will have an heir so that they can use protection without fear.

>>3373699

I disagree, and let me illustrate that with an example.

M'butu has 10 kids, but 90% of them will die before they reach the age of 5 due to dehydration and parasitic infections. That means she has effectively only added one person to the population.

Lisa has 2 kids, and 100% of them will survive, due to the availability of better healthcare and such. That means she has effectively added two people to the population.

As mentioned before, birth rates != population growth.

>>3373713
>90% mortality rate
Yea... right...

So what actually happens is M'butu has 4 kids in-case Lady Luck absolutely hates him and then accidentally has 6 more.

3 of them die but that's still 7 added to the population.

>>3373738

It was only a made-up example, but the mortality rate for kids under the age of 5 is staggering in poor countries (if I find some readable data on it, I'll post it. Might need a working scanner for it, though).
My point is that poor families get a load of kids (most of whom end up dying) both as a form of insurance and for additional income. Once the potential parent receives a higher wage, the insurance is no longer as necessary and neither is the additional income kids could provide; she is therefore less inclined to get kids as she grows richer, since it's simply not profitable.

>>3373759
The global rate is only 6%
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_56045.html

That's not even comically close to 90%

Given the sheer bulk of population in the poor countries if they truly had the kind of rates you're implying the global rate should be far higher.

I would like to see them raise the debt ceiling without conditions now. Then, when the economy picks up, address the deficit and debt through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases (closing loopholes, higher tax rates on the upper class, standard liberal propaganda).

>>3373581
except it's not US vs Them, we are selling ourselves, it's not others selling us.

>>3373817

Like I said, it's only a made-up example! I never said it's actually 90%, though it's certainly plausible (depending on the standard deviation of death rates). Furthermore, if you look at the mortality rates in poor countries instead of the meaningless global average, they're abhorrently high.
You seem to be missing the point, it being that birth rates are not the same as population growth (as your earlier posts implied). Let's go back to that earlier discussion.

>>3373817

>Contrasting fictional particular and circumstantial example intended for explanation, with factual universal circumstance.

Excuse me, what are you attempting to achieve?
Also are you 12?

>>3373882
That's an irrelevant, ambiguous statement. Allow me to specify on both accounts: the video and yours. In the video he's literally talking about who is buying our debt/bonds; whoever owns those owns ALL of our public things like roads, land and servants such as those who work in the law/justice departments (I'm not so sure the military comes along with the package but I wouldn't be surprised) -- in other words, they own the (economic) power of the country or however else you want to translate the ownership of the 'public wealth'. You are referring to a whole different issue about our customary practices of working for hire and profit in which case yes.

Both THEM and US are selling ourselves and in the literal legal language they are selling our "persons" (social security accounts).

>>3373420
Then don't bail them out.

>mfw people don't know why the housing collapse happened
>implying fannie mae and freddie mac aren't GSE(Government sponsored enterprises)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GoAGuTIbVY

>>3373220

RONALD REAGAN WAS NIGGER!


anyone who disagrees a fucking idiot!

>>3373537
>Bush raised the debt ceiling
>democratic congress