Is a US economic implosion (aka Greece) inevitable?

[AndroAsc]

I do not have any formal education in economics, so perhaps others can correct me if I am wrong.

From my perspective, it seems that a US economic implosion is inevitable, assuming nothing changes. What I mean is that we will end up like Greece or worse. But yet nobody seems to care or nobody seems to realize this. I was not born in this country, so perhaps that is why I do not share the American optimism that I see everywhere.

Firstly, record high debt and running deficit every single year for over a decade now. Debt to GDP ratio is close to the WW2 highs. But unlike WW2 and the post-WW2 recovery, we have outsourced all of our jobs to China and other third world countries. Are our war efforts bringing a boost to the American economy like it did during the WW2 era? No... it is unlikely that America will enter into another Golden Age of growth as it did in the past, and at the best it will take another decade of slow but steady growth to recover from this debt.

Secondly, poor fiscal management at every level by the govt. Congress doesn't want to touch Medicare and SS even though it is broken, so Congress will just let the train continue until it slams into the wall. Congress doesn't want to withdraw from the Middle East even though we have spent trillions and gained nothing substantial. Is the US any closer to controlling the oil assets of the Middle East? NO! Instead it has help spread anti-Americanism in that region, and now many oil rich nations are buddying up with China and Russia, which is in my opinion the real enemy. Congress doesn't want to raise taxes even though the last Bush tax cuts were temporary. So how on earth does America expect to fix it's economy if it is unwilling to take steps to address it? The American economy is sick, diseased and dying. If we don't take our medication or seek treatment, it is going to wither away, and that seems to be the direction this country is heading towards to.

Lastly, I have always seen the argument that the US can print its own money but countries like Greece cannot, so that is why US will never fail. So that's why the US will not end up like the Eurozone too, cause we have the almighty power to print money. Big deal! This leads me to the most important point of how the monetary system is screwed up. Whenever the US government wants to print money it has to take a loan from the Federal Reserve, that despite its name is a private banking cartel. So this means that the US government will always be financially indentured to this banking cartel. Can anyone tell me WHY? Why has the US government gave up its SOVEREIGN right to issue its own currency to a group of people who are unelected and have zero accountability to the American people?

To me, it seems that this country is doomed. I truly cannot understand why Americans are not trying to leave the US in droves. Am I missing something?

Unless a miracle happens, which would be fixing Medicare and other social entitlement programs, a complete abandonment on the ongoing military campaign in the Middle East and the dissolution of the Federal Reserve, I do not see any way out of this shitthole that America has dug itself into.

And to add a last rant about my observations about America and its common political discussion is that nobody ever seems to be discussing these topics, which I think would be the most pertinent for America's future. There's always so much useless discussion about abortion (pro-life vs pro-choice), the right to teach creationism in schools crap, and legalizing gay marriages. I can't help but yell in my head "Who the fuck cares about this shit? America has much bigger problem right now than to deal with abortion, creationism and gays!"

[Darth Wong]

How much research have you done before coming to these conclusions? Everything you're saying sounds like stuff cribbed from politicians' speeches.

[AndroAsc]

How much research have you done before coming to these conclusions? Everything you're saying sounds like stuff cribbed from politicians' speeches.

Politicians are all about gay rights, abortion and creationism (and now climate change).

Has there been any politician that has seriously tackled these big issues? NO... Democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs. Republicans don't want to talk taxes. Neither party wants to withdraw from the Middle East (they might *say* they want to but their actions speaks otherwise). Didn't we just deploy a 3rd carrier group to Iran recently?

So yes, please tell me where are the similarities between what I mentioned vs. what is being discussed in mainstream politics.

[Darth Wong]

How much research have you done before coming to these conclusions? Everything you're saying sounds like stuff cribbed from politicians' speeches.

Politicians are all about gay rights, abortion and creationism (and now climate change).

Has there been any politician that has seriously tackled these big issues? NO... Democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs. Republicans don't want to talk taxes. Neither party wants to withdraw from the Middle East (they might *say* they want to but their actions speaks otherwise). Didn't we just deploy a 3rd carrier group to Iran recently?

So yes, please tell me where are the similarities between what I mentioned vs. what is being discussed in mainstream politics.

You don't understand. I am saying that you speak in generalities and subjective terms. None of what you say suggests that there was any serious study behind it.

[Chirios]

I do not have any formal education in economics, so perhaps others can correct me if I am wrong.

Why do you say this -

From my perspective, it seems that a US economic implosion is inevitable, assuming nothing changes. What I mean is that we will end up like Greece or worse. But yet nobody seems to care or nobody seems to realize this.

And then continue with this? You acknowledge that you have no training or understanding of economics, then you make a judgement that the US's economy is going to crash, then you conclude that noone cares or realises about your judgement. That makes no sense. It's not that they don't care or don't realise, it's that they, with all their knowledge and experience, don't believe that it's going to happen.

Has there been any politician that has seriously tackled these big issues? NO... Democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs. Republicans don't want to talk taxes. Neither party wants to withdraw from the Middle East (they might *say* they want to but their actions speaks otherwise).

Err, what? The last year or so has been nothing but democrats and republicans talking about cutting various aspects of the budget.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's see. In Greece, the government accounts for an astonishing 40% of GDP. Tourism counts for another 15% (both figures from the CIA World Factbook). Tax evasion is rampant and unchecked, accounting for an estimated 3-4% of the GDP according to the Foundation for Economic & Industrial Research in Athens.

This begs the question: before declaring that the US is in the same situation as Greece, should one not demonstrate that its economy is similarly unbalanced? And there are plenty of other important structural differences one could point to, such as the fact that the US has a far more advanced and developed industrial and technology sector. All of which begs the question: how does one arrive at the conclusion that the US has become similar to Greece?

Don't worry AndroAsc, I understand that our responses are putting you off-balance. We were not supposed to respond by asking you to back up your apocalyptic language with actual information. Instead, we were all supposed to nod our heads in agreement, and then all collectively shake our fists at all the stupid people who can't see the coming Armageddon. Right?

[AndroAsc]

And then continue with this? You acknowledge that you have no training or understanding of economics, then you make a judgement that the US's economy is going to crash, then you conclude that noone cares or realises about your judgement. That makes no sense. It's not that they don't care or don't realise, it's that they, with all their knowledge and experience, don't believe that it's going to happen.

I admit that I am not formally trained in economics, that is why I am soliciting the opinions from others, and if I am wrong to point of how/why it is incorrect.

Has there been any politician that has seriously tackled these big issues? NO... Democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs. Republicans don't want to talk taxes. Neither party wants to withdraw from the Middle East (they might *say* they want to but their actions speaks otherwise).

Err, what? The last year or so has been nothing but democrats and republicans talking about cutting various aspects of the budget.

Are you kidding me? What kind of cuts has there been? They have all been piecemeal and small token amounts. Facts:
1) Congress refuses to tackle entitlement programs especially Medisave which is projected to cause serious financial burden in a few decades time.
2) Congress refuses to stop waging expensive wars in the Middle-East that has not brought us anything on tangible value.
3) Congress refuses to return tax rates to normal. I refuse to say "increase tax rates" cause Bush's tax cuts were supposed to be temporarily.

And btw, the cause of our current financial problems is because of (2) and (3).

Do you refute any of the 3 facts presented above? If you do not, how can you say that Congress is taking definitive action to resolve America's economic situation?

[Darth Wong]

Are you kidding me? What kind of cuts has there been? They have all been piecemeal and small token amounts. Facts:
1) Congress refuses to tackle entitlement programs especially Medisave which is projected to cause serious financial burden in a few decades time.
2) Congress refuses to stop waging expensive wars in the Middle-East that has not brought us anything on tangible value.
3) Congress refuses to return tax rates to normal. I refuse to say "increase tax rates" cause Bush's tax cuts were supposed to be temporarily.

And btw, the cause of our current financial problems is because of (2) and (3).

Do you refute any of the 3 facts presented above? If you do not, how can you say that Congress is taking definitive action to resolve America's economic situation?

None of these facts justify your claim that America is on the verge of having an economy like that of Greece.

[AndroAsc]

OK, let's see. In Greece, the government accounts for an astonishing 40% of GDP. Tourism counts for another 15% (both figures from the CIA World Factbook). Tax evasion is rampant and unchecked, accounting for an estimated 3-4% of the GDP according to the Foundation for Economic & Industrial Research in Athens.

This begs the question: before declaring that the US is in the same situation as Greece, should one not demonstrate that its economy is similarly unbalanced? And there are plenty of other important structural differences one could point to, such as the fact that the US has a far more advanced and developed industrial and technology sector. All of which begs the question: how does one arrive at the conclusion that the US has become similar to Greece?

I have not declared that the US is in the same situation as Greece TODAY, I am stating that we will inevitably end up like Greece if status quo remains. For example today US Debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100% and increasing. To put things in perspective Greece's Debt-to-GDP ratio of 150% and Australia (an example of what I would consider a fiscally healthy developed nation) is 20%.

[AndroAsc]

None of these facts justify your claim that America is on the verge of having an economy like that of Greece.

I never said "on the verge". I said "inevitable". See my first post. Please check dictionary for the difference between inevitable and imminent.

And my points were raised to refute the claim that Congress has been trying to address America's debt/deficit problem for the last year. My point is that no definitive action has been taken.

[Darth Wong]

None of these facts justify your claim that America is on the verge of having an economy like that of Greece.

I never said "on the verge". I said "inevitable". See my first post. Please check dictionary for the difference between inevitable and imminent.

Fine, be as nitpicky as you like. None of these facts justify your claim that America will inevitably become like Greece. Are you happy now?

Now answer the goddamned point. You have presented absolutely nothing to indicate that America's economy structurally resembles Greece in even the most vague sense. You do know what "structural" means, right?

[Chirios]

I admit that I am not formally trained in economics, that is why I am soliciting the opinions from others, and if I am wrong to point of how/why it is incorrect.

You're wrong because Greece isn't the US. Look at Darth Wong's post to see the difference. The government does not account for as large a proportion of the US economy as it does in Greece. The US isn't as horrifically corrupt as it is in Greece and the US has it's own currency. That's why economists are not concerned about what happened in Greece happening in the US.

Has there been any politician that has seriously tackled these big issues? NO... Democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs. Republicans don't want to talk taxes. Neither party wants to withdraw from the Middle East (they might *say* they want to but their actions speaks otherwise).

Err, what? The last year or so has been nothing but democrats and republicans talking about cutting various aspects of the budget.

Are you kidding me? What kind of cuts has there been? They have all been piecemeal and small token amounts.

That's not what you said originally. You said that what you said hasn't been said by US politicians, it has. You said that democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs, they do. Your original post wasn't about the efficacy of Congress in dealing with these issues, it was about them not even talking about these issues in the first place.

Facts:
1) Congress refuses to tackle entitlement programs especially Medisave which is projected to cause serious financial burden in a few decades time.
2) Congress refuses to stop waging expensive wars in the Middle-East that has not brought us anything on tangible value.
3) Congress refuses to return tax rates to normal. I refuse to say "increase tax rates" cause Bush's tax cuts were supposed to be temporarily.

1 & 2 are utter bollucks. The US has left Iraq, the US is in the process of leaving Afghanistan. Several plans have been circulated that offer to cut the military budget, healthcare budget and social security; they've been shot down because the Democrats and Republicans disagree about raising taxes. Also, what does "normal" mean in this case? 1960's? 1970's? 1990's?

Do you refute any of the 3 facts presented above? If you do not, how can you say that Congress is taking definitive action to resolve America's economic situation?

I refute two of the three, and I didn't say congress is taking definitive action, I said that congress has been talking about it. That almost nothing that you said in that original post hasn't been said in one form or another by American politicians.

[AndroAsc]

None of these facts justify your claim that America is on the verge of having an economy like that of Greece.

I never said "on the verge". I said "inevitable". See my first post. Please check dictionary for the difference between inevitable and imminent.

Fine, be as nitpicky as you like. None of these facts justify your claim that America will inevitably become like Greece. Are you happy now?

Now answer the goddamned point. You have presented absolutely nothing to indicate that America's economy structurally resembles Greece in even the most vague sense.

I am using debt-to-GDP as the primary indicator to compare the similarity between US and Greece. Yes, both nations have economies that are different, so what? If you are in debt, it doesn't matter where your paycheck is coming from.

What about the projections by the CBO that within 20+ years US debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 150% if status quo is maintained?

[AndroAsc]

You're wrong because Greece isn't the US. Look at Darth Wong's post to see the difference. The government does not account for as large a proportion of the US economy as it does in Greece. The US isn't as horrifically corrupt as it is in Greece and the US has it's own currency. That's why economists are not concerned about what happened in Greece happening in the US.

Ok fair enough, but that doesn't negate the point that our debt is still increasing to levels that will become unsustainable.

That's not what you said originally. You said that what you said hasn't been said by US politicians, it has. You said that democrats don't want to touch entitlement programs, they do. Your original post wasn't about the efficacy of Congress in dealing with these issues, it was about them not even talking about these issues in the first place.

Fine, I will concede. I was concerned with the efficacy of their proposed measures. If memory serves me correctly, democrats do NOT want to touch entitlement programs. What measures have they taken if they are willing to do so? And I am looking for effective measures not token measures.

Facts:
1) Congress refuses to tackle entitlement programs especially Medisave which is projected to cause serious financial burden in a few decades time.
2) Congress refuses to stop waging expensive wars in the Middle-East that has not brought us anything on tangible value.
3) Congress refuses to return tax rates to normal. I refuse to say "increase tax rates" cause Bush's tax cuts were supposed to be temporarily.

1 & 2 are utter bollucks. The US has left Iraq, the US is in the process of leaving Afghanistan. Several plans have been circulated that offer to cut the military budget, healthcare budget and social security; they've been shot down because the Democrats and Republicans disagree about raising taxes. Also, what does "normal" mean in this case? 1960's? 1970's? 1990's?

So we left Iraq and are preparing to leave Afghanistan (how long will that take, 10 years?)... but we are preparing for another war with Iran. So you are just replacing one expensive war with another.

By "normal" I refer to the 1990s pre-Bush tax cuts. But if you look at US historical tax rate, it gets worse. We are at an all time low. During the WW2 period where the US debt to GDP ratio was above 100%, tax rates was raised to high levels (>50%), but today we find ourselves in a potentially similar situation, but we want to extend tax cuts? How does that make fiscal sense?

I refute two of the three, and I didn't say congress is taking definitive action, I said that congress has been talking about it. That almost nothing that you said in that original post hasn't been said in one form or another by American politicians.

Alright then I will agree with you. Congress has done nothing but talk, but no effective measures has been taken.

[bobalot]

I am using debt-to-GDP as the primary indicator to compare the similarity between US and Greece. What about the projections by the CBO that within 20+ years US debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 150% if status quo is maintained?

What is your evidence for your assumption that the status quo will be maintained will be maintained for 20 years? You listed "expensive" wars in the Middle East even though the United States is drawing down the Iraq war. That alone disproves your assumption.

[Kryten]

What is your evidence that the status quo will be maintained will be maintained for 20 years? You listed "expensive" wars in the Middle East even though the United States is drawing down the Iraq war. That alone disproves your assumption that the "status quo" will be maintained for another 20 years.

He's stated in his other current thread that the U.S. is 'inevitably' moving towards war with Iran, and then probably other gulf oil states, due to the approach of peak oil-which makes it a pretty reasonable assumption from his viewpoint.

[Chirios]

I am using debt-to-GDP as the primary indicator to compare the similarity between US and Greece. Yes, both nations have economies that are different, so what?

Is this a serious question? When analysing the solvency of a country you have to look at the fact that their economies are different, that's what economics is. As for your comment about debt, yes it does matter where your paycheck is coming from. The size of your paycheck also matters. As does how frequently you get paid.

What about the projections by the CBO that within 20+ years US debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 150% if status quo is maintained?

That's bad, but that won't turn the US into Greece.

So we left Iraq and are preparing to leave Afghanistan (how long will that take, 10 years?)... but we are preparing for another war with Iran. So you are just replacing one expensive war with another.

The US has prepared and is preparing for a war with pretty much everyone, but a war with Iran is highly unlikely. Two, the US is aiming to leave Afghanistan by 2014.

By "normal" I refer to the 1990s pre-Bush tax cuts. But if you look at US historical tax rate, it gets worse. We are at an all time low. During the WW2 period where the US debt to GDP ratio was above 100%, tax rates was raised to high levels (>50%), but today we find ourselves in a potentially similar situation, but we want to extend tax cuts? How does that make fiscal sense?

... The US was at war during the WW2 period, hence, taxes were higher.

[Darth Wong]

I am using debt-to-GDP as the primary indicator to compare the similarity between US and Greece. Yes, both nations have economies that are different, so what? If you are in debt, it doesn't matter where your paycheck is coming from.

That's idiotic. The structural strength of an economy tells you how capable it is of addressing a large debt. This is like saying that a guy with 12 dependents and a guy with 2 dependents are in the same boat, if their debt:income ratio are the same.

What about the projections by the CBO that within 20+ years US debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 150% if status quo is maintained?

This is where your near-total lack of understanding of the issue prevents comprehension. The structural strength of an economy tells you how capable it is of adjusting the status quo. You're just pointing at lines on a graph and triumphantly extrapolating them as if this represents some sort of profound revelation.

[bobalot]

What is your evidence that the status quo will be maintained will be maintained for 20 years? You listed "expensive" wars in the Middle East even though the United States is drawing down the Iraq war. That alone disproves your assumption that the "status quo" will be maintained for another 20 years.

He's stated in his other current thread that the U.S. is 'inevitably' moving towards war with Iran, and then probably other gulf oil states, due to the approach of peak oil-which makes it a pretty reasonable assumption from his viewpoint.

No, that is not a reasonable assumption at all. It takes huge leaps based on a hypothetical scenario. This is not a game of Sid Meier's Civilisation. This is the real world.

[Chirios]

And to continue the Iran invasion stuff, an invasion of Iran, while not impossible, is highly unlikely simply because of the geographic and geopolitical issues surrounding such. Now, if the OP had said "we (America) are going to bomb Iran back the feudal age", that would be more accurate.

[Kryten]

He's stated in his other current thread that the U.S. is 'inevitably' moving towards war with Iran, and then probably other gulf oil states, due to the approach of peak oil-which makes it a pretty reasonable assumption from his viewpoint.

No, that is not a reasonable assumption at all. It takes huge leaps based on a hypothetical scenario. This is not a game of Sid Meier's Civilisation. This is the real world.

Hence why I said it was reasonable from his viewpoint- I didn't make any claims as to his viewpoint's connection with reality. I was simply pointing out that from his point of view, given the things he already believes to be true, the pullout from Iraq doesn't disprove his point, as he believes that another (inevitably even more expensive) war is coming very soon.

[AndroAsc]

By "normal" I refer to the 1990s pre-Bush tax cuts. But if you look at US historical tax rate, it gets worse. We are at an all time low. During the WW2 period where the US debt to GDP ratio was above 100%, tax rates was raised to high levels (>50%), but today we find ourselves in a potentially similar situation, but we want to extend tax cuts? How does that make fiscal sense?

... The US was at war during the WW2 period, hence, taxes were higher.

Erm... but wasn't there a decade long War on Terror from 2000-today? Wouldn't that justify higher taxes too?

[AndroAsc]

And to continue the Iran invasion stuff, an invasion of Iran, while not impossible, is highly unlikely simply because of the geographic and geopolitical issues surrounding such. Now, if the OP had said "we (America) are going to bomb Iran back the feudal age", that would be more accurate.

Going to side track to this topic on my belief that a war in Iran is inevitable. Obviously, many on this board disagree. So what do you guys make out of the increased military build in the Middle East region? The fact that we have deployed a 3rd carrier group and I remember reading it is the largest number of carrier groups deployed to one region in modern historical time. So are we just deploying military forces around Iran for show?

[Chirios]

Erm... but wasn't there a decade long War on Terror from 2000-today? Wouldn't that justify higher taxes too?

No. The War on Terror wasn't an official declaration of war, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were against two nations that were significantly weaker than Germany was during WW2, and finally, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars cost a fuckload less than WW2 did.

Going to side track to this topic on my belief that a war in Iran is inevitable. Obviously, many on this board disagree. So what do you guys make out of the increased military build in the Middle East region? The fact that we have deployed a 3rd carrier group and I remember reading it is the largest number of carrier groups deployed to one region in modern historical time. So are we just deploying military forces around Iran for show?

No. But America probably isn't going to go to war with Iran either. Or at least, in the range of military actions it could take against Iran, bombardment is much more probably than ground invasion.

[J]

Are you kidding me? What kind of cuts has there been? They have all been piecemeal and small token amounts. Facts:
1) Congress refuses to tackle entitlement programs especially Medisave which is projected to cause serious financial burden in a few decades time.
2) Congress refuses to stop waging expensive wars in the Middle-East that has not brought us anything on tangible value.
3) Congress refuses to return tax rates to normal. I refuse to say "increase tax rates" cause Bush's tax cuts were supposed to be temporarily.

And btw, the cause of our current financial problems is because of (2) and (3).

Have you taken a look at the budget expenditure pie charts recently?
I suggest you do so before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Hint: You can zero out defence and all other discretionary spending and still barely balance the budget.