Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html en-gb 30 Sun 21 Dec 2014 05:12:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=97#comment42 Countries [especially China] have relied on the US to buy their products and thus support their economies, recently they [especially India and China] have been taking Americans' jobs [by waving wads of cash under the noses of greedy, shortsighted American businessmen].When the US government tries to do something about it [however late and insufficient] they scream bloody murder about curency manipulation. India and China are hypocritical, EU/UK have a real beef because our reaction to China could hurt them as well.My suggestion is that the UK, EU and other "friendly" countries make an arrangement with the US that aligns them against the "frenemy" countries. Don't get me wrong, the US should not, given the past few decades, be given carte blanche. The DemRep culprits will have to be given stern warnings with teeth as a condition for this help.The right wingers will scream like banshees, but that's just old-fashioned "business," I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Or, "I'll make you a deal you can't refuse." Fri 12 Nov 2010 21:40:24 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=95#comment41 chronophone wrote: James Fallows on coal, cooperation, and China's role as a global leader in energy innovation...-----------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, and if anyone needs to go green, its the world's biggest polluter...from wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_ChinaAn exerpt:Estimates of excess deaths in China from environmental pollution (apart from smoking) are placed at 760,000 people per annum from air and water pollution (including indoor air pollution).In 2007, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of Carbon dioxide.Some 90% of China's cities suffer from some degree of water pollution, and nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water. Reports by the World Bank and the New York Times have claimed industrial pollution, particularly of the air, to be significant health hazards in China.Part of the price China is paying for increased prosperity is damage to the environment. Leading Chinese environmental campaigner Ma Jun has warned that water pollution is one of the most serious threats facing China. According to the Ministry of Water Resources, roughly 300 million Chinese are drinking unsafe water. This makes the crisis of water shortages more pressing, with 400 out of 600 cities short of water.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Who nearby has extra water?Russia has the world's largest lake...-----------------------------------------------------------------------But yes, chronophone, China is beginning to invest in green energy...especially with the amount of people they have...Another exerpt:With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country. Fri 12 Nov 2010 19:54:41 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=93#comment40 If wrote: First, it maximizes the growth rate of the Chinese economy, and particularly vis-a-vis the American economy.------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, squeezing another country's economy is one way to assert foreign control...------------------------------------------------------------------------If wrote: Second, it hastens the downfall of America and the rise of China in geopolitical terms.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Which begs the question, if trades with China are causing us massive debts/deficits along with tainted or recalled items and threatening economic future of USA, then why are we still trading so much with them?If someone has an painful hangnail that keeps getting worse, what do they do? Remove or cut the hangnail off before get infection...What's saddest of all is that our Presidents and Congress let it go this far...they should have stopped it or changed agreement so we are not suffering long before we reached this point...Now President Obama is trying to fix why its so one-sided, but when the other country is on their way to gaining power to rule the world, the LEAST thing they would want to do is stop the flow...If China won't negociate or compromise, I believe that USA simply needs to reduce our trading with China by at least 75 % in order for USA to have prosporous economic future...order the products from anywhere else...and maybe even cut back on some things we don't need...What's the point of doing unfair trades that put one's economy in debt?------------------------------------------------------------------------If wrote: Third, if you consider the average standard of living in China, and compare it with the average standard of living in America, Americans still have it pretty good. Chinese in the relatively poorer interior regions of China experience a day-to-day level of hardship that most Americans have not known since before WWII. The argument that Americans are suffering too much may therefore not fall on a particularly receptive audience in China.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Well, we're people too and there are starving poor people who can't pay bills, some can't afford homes, some in massive debt, can't afford health care or medical bills put them in debt, some live in very violent neighborhoods with gangs, ect.If the Chinese don't feel that their standard of living is high enough, they need to take it up with China's Court, not with USA... Fri 12 Nov 2010 19:42:48 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=90#comment39 James Fallows on coal, cooperation, and China's role as a global leader in energy innovation here. Fri 12 Nov 2010 14:24:10 GMT+1 SusqueHannah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=88#comment38 13. Scott0962 wrote:"Every war is just and necessary at the time. Only history decides which are a just war and which are hust a war.."and29. powermeerkat wrote:"They [our parents and granparents]got us into useless wars""WWI? WWII? Korean War? Bosnian War?Please, speak up!"Well, no not really. In my neck of the woods, there are many people who believe there is no such thing as a just war. The way some Mennonites describe it went something like this: "In a war, you are shooting people. If those people happen to be your fellow Christians, then you're murdering your own brothers. If they are unbelievers, then you're sending them to hell, where they get no second chances."I'm not a Mennonite, and I don't entirely agree with their view. But my definition of a just war is far more stringent than either of yours. The US involvement in WW1 and WW2 was necessary; the others are less excusable. Anyway, my grandparents did not fight WW2; they were children when it ended. Fri 12 Nov 2010 12:56:09 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=86#comment37 Re IF at 25 -You just made good sense of my ill informed suspicions on this: our economy mandates that we take this step, in great part because of the monetary policy of the Chinese and the severe imbalances we have built with their collusion. As the Pres has just said, the best single factor in improving the world's economic posture is for the American economic engine (and NOT the financial houses, but the American market for goods and services) to regain its strength.(Folks may quibble and grouse at this, but here in 2010 it is still the reality. Maybe in the best of all worlds one player will no longer be so dominant, but reaching that balance will take more maturity than is evident today.) Fri 12 Nov 2010 05:14:16 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=83#comment36 re: IF But China has allowed virtually no rise in the Yuan. In that regard, the premier's comments have a certain air of disingenuousness.I make no claim to be an expert in these things, but I'm pretty good at sussing out the experts that seem credible. Pettis comes well recommended, and has a good pedigree, so I will for argument's sake take up the cudgel on his behalf. Two things: a) Since June the RMB (yuan) has appreciated against the US$ by something like 5%. In the mean time, the dollar has fallen even further vis a vis most other world currencies. So the RMB value vis a vis the Euro, for example, has gone down (funky graph thingy to play with here). So is this cheating? If you buy from China in Euros, it definitely sucks. But Wen is right -- it's not his fault that the greenback is falling vis a vis the Euro (and everybody else!)b) China has had a very rough ride out of this recession: huge economic volatility. The Communist Party generates popular legitimacy from its ability to generate prosperity. If growth slows, prosperity recedes, people get angry. Tanks in the streets and all that. I don't see China as a power bent on world domination. Not yet. Hopefully not ever. Right now, they are fighting to maintain stability, securing resources, and testing out new muscles as a regional 'superpower.'Trade is good, war is bad for business. And it's business China wants. Fri 12 Nov 2010 04:49:27 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=81#comment35 From the link cited by Pinko at 34, the author being named Pettis, some short excerpts for illustration:"Last week, Premier Wen Jiabao warned the world to stop pressuring China on the yuan. A rapid rise in the value of the currency, he said, was unacceptable because it could lead to massive unemployment and social instability.""“Europe shouldn’t join the choir to press China to allow more yuan appreciation,” Wen said in a speech at a meeting of business leaders in Brussels. “The euro had a big fluctuation recently. It’s not because of yuan but the dollars. We shouldn’t be blamed for it; if there’s someone to be questioned, it should be the U.S.”""Wen’s concern should have come as no surprise. Chinese economic growth is vulnerable to changes in the current-account surplus. A rapid strengthening of the yuan could easily cause a slowdown by throwing exporters into turmoil."__________In each paragraph the concern is about the "rapid rise", or the "big fluctuation" or the "rapid strengthening" leading to "turmoil".But China has allowed virtually no rise in the Yuan. In that regard, the premier's comments have a certain air of disingenuousness. It is an hard peg, not a crawling peg. If China had allowed the Yuan to appreciate at 4% per year - which, as currencies go is not that much - the problem wouldn't exist. Even at 3% over ten years, the problem would be relatively smallish, and manageable.But by following the hard peg policy that China has adopted, the government of China is increasing the risk of exactly the rapid swings that it supposedly wishes to avoid - because when the Yuan finally comes off the hard peg, it is going to move fast, not slow. And it is going to overshoot, as currencies tend to do.The reason the Euro has moved so far is that China hasn't let the Yuan move enough. If all the correction in the trade weighted exchange rate of the US dollar has to be accommodated by the Euro and other western currencies, they are going to have to move a lot farther to yield the same overall effect as if the Yuan moved its fair share. I don't buy this argument, and I also don't buy the argument in the other Pettis article, because it attempts to prove too much. The fact is that if you lower a country's trade weighted exchange rate all of its goods and services become less expensive as compared to its neighbours. What the mix of exports and imports is will change, come what may, and international trade flows will rebalance.----------I think China is holding the hard peg for three reasons.First, it maximizes the growth rate of the Chinese economy, and particularly vis-a-vis the American economy.Second, it hastens the downfall of America and the rise of China in geopolitical terms.Third, if you consider the average standard of living in China, and compare it with the average standard of living in America, Americans still have it pretty good. Chinese in the relatively poorer interior regions of China experience a day-to-day level of hardship that most Americans have not known since before WWII. The argument that Americans are suffering too much may therefore not fall on a particularly receptive audience in China. Fri 12 Nov 2010 02:47:11 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=79#comment34 How do we do this in a way that helps both USA and China, where both countries feel like they get something out of bargain?If USA economy does better, that helps China, because we somehow buy a lot of their products, so why wouldn't China want to help us?Or is this a way of "firing an invisible torpedo" persay?Ultimately, how does China feel about the USA?Is their goal to surpass us by our economy going down/theirs going up or is their goal to have a stable and prosperous China and also USA?Personally, I don't feel like I really understand China's intentions toward USA short term or long term...But I do know that song from the 80's that one of my brothers loves by Tears for Fears,"Everybody wants to rule the world..." Thu 11 Nov 2010 17:02:30 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=76#comment33 A good essay outlining why China is so reluctant to simply float its currency here.Raising domestic consumption while reducing export reliance is no easy trick.And an essay here sspecifically addressing the US/China trade imbalance and the question of employment levels in the US. Pettis' conclusions are rather gloomy -- what is required are sensible multilateral agreements to bring things in line in a controlled and mutually beneficial way. Unfortunately, what is likely to actually happen are tariffs and more currency interventions. Sigh. It's going to be a long, long winter ... . Thu 11 Nov 2010 15:31:29 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=74#comment32 This is probably pointless, but I'd like to remind AnnArbour way up there that QE is a monetary policy developed and implemented by the Federal Reserve, and that the Fed is an independent organization.QE is not a fiscal policy of the Obama Administration.So if you have issues with it, take it up with Ben Bernanke. Who you will find does have a little experience, and a credential or two. Thu 11 Nov 2010 15:15:49 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=72#comment31 31. At 09:29am on 11 Nov 2010, PartTimeDon wrote:This is a very alarmist piece. The danger of trade wars is still a very long way off.__________Really?We're in the beginnings of one now, over currencies, and if it doesn't get solved, and soon, you're going to see the raising of all sorts of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. You can see it happening. There are already plenty of voices in Congress in favour of both isolationsim and protectionism.No, I am not as comfortable as you are on this point. Thu 11 Nov 2010 14:12:22 GMT+1 PartTimeDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=69#comment30 This is a very alarmist piece. The danger of trade wars is still a very long way off. Thu 11 Nov 2010 09:29:32 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=67#comment29 JMM asks:"Does anyone here know the Chinese [Mandarin or Cantonese] for hypocrite?"Bui-sheet. Thu 11 Nov 2010 09:02:36 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=65#comment28 "They [our parents and granparents]got us into useless wars"WWI? WWII? Korean War? Bosnian War? Please, speak up! Thu 11 Nov 2010 09:00:47 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=62#comment27 "there are a few of us geezers that think a modest cut in our social security of a few percent might make just sense given the debt and deficit. Besides, Purina cat products are really quite tasty when you heat them up"Unless they've been made in China. Thu 11 Nov 2010 08:57:12 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=60#comment26 MM: "Chinese deem it unfair currency manipulation."That mind not be regarded as hypocrisy had Chinese not manipulated its yan by keeping it artifically low (undervalued by roughly 30%) for decades to help PRC flood our markets with dirt cheap T-shirts, panties, bras, bikes, sneakers, led-painted toys and melamine-saturated baby formulas. Thu 11 Nov 2010 08:53:52 GMT+1 rodidog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=58#comment25 25 IF,"I believe it was called "stagflation", if memory serves."Your memory is correct. They even had the "misery index" if you remeber. Good post by the way. Thu 11 Nov 2010 06:28:43 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=55#comment24 The point of QE2 is to make it more and more expensive for China to manipulate its currency.China simply refuses to do its part by letting its currency float properly. The Yuan is undervalued by 50 - 60%. China does this deliberately, and it is distorting currency markets around the world - it affects the Europeans, who are doing their bit, and countries like Brazil who suddenly find themselves with overvalued currencies through no fault of their own.The usual way to force a nation off a currency peg is to make that peg unaffordable. Usually it happens the other way around - where the weaker economy tries to maintain an overvalued exchange rate. The markets can see it is overvalued, and so there is a flight of capital from the weaker currency to the stronger currency in the expectation of a devaluation. That flight of capital then makes the peg even harder to sustain.Since the weaker economy isn't getting the inflows of foreign capital to finance its deficit spending, it prints money to pay its bills. The action of printing money is seen for the desperation it is, and the markets discount the currency still further, turning the screws ever tighter. Printing money is, indeed, inflationary.I feel a bit for the Germans, because they have been doing their part in allowing the Euro to appreciate against the dollar, and I also feel for the Brazilians and others. Basically, there is an exchange rate shoot-out going on, and all these other countries are innocent bystanders who are getting caught in the cross-fire. Still the big villain in this piece is China, without a doubt.(The Chinese, of course, with some justification can point to America's inability to take sensible steps like raising taxes and cutting subsidies to favoured industry sectors, and failure to trim entitlement spending as America's own fault.)So, since the US cannot raise tariffs against China, what the fed is doing it the traditional way to make the holders of the inflationary currency pay for holding the peg. China's policy of refusing to permit the Yuan to float will become more and more expensive for China to maintain. Eventually the Yuan will come off the peg and overshoot the right value, before settling down. That will cause a lot more disruption than if China had revalued smoothly upward in the first place.Roughly speaking, that is exactly what China deserves for being mule-headed.The well known economic genius of the Tea Party doesn't seem to understand that when Ronald Reagan came to office inflation was running 10% - 12%, and real interest rates were nonetheless still negative. I believe it was called "stagflation", if memory serves. The problem was to squeeze inflationary expectations out of the market. Paul Volcker (now one of President Obama's advisors, mind you) did that by running interest rates up to 22%.Right now market expectations are not inflationary at all - they are, if anything, deflationary. So trying to maintain the value of an already over-valued currency is more likely to lead to worse trouble - and to lengthening unemployment lines.As for the measure being inflationary, yes, it is.But so what? It needs to be. America's economy is still flirting with deflation.How do we know?We know because nominal interest rates are, more or less, zero, and yet the perception in the markets is that money still isn't cheap enough to make borrowing worthwhile. I.e., at 0% nominal interest rate, real interest rates are still perceived to be too high! As a rule of thumb, that implies that even at 0% nominal interest, real interest rates are 3% - 4%, or possibly more. If the Chinese won't move on exchange rates, the only way out of that straight-jacket is to pump up the money supply until the nominal interest rate is less than the real interest rate. The fed can do that, now, because inflation is too low. When inflation is too low, prices can't adjust.As for what the "correct" exchange rate should be, a country with 10% unemployment and a huge trade deficit in the energy sector should not, in any rational world, be running the huge trade deficits that America is running. That makes no sense. It is a clear indication that American labour is being priced out of the market because it is (and therefore American goods and services are) too expensive. The price of that labour needs to fall (and therefore those goods and services). The way for that to occur is for America's trade-weighted exchange rate to fall. And one way to do that is to print money - which the Fed is doing.If other nations don't like that, then they should conduct their business in something other than US dollars. I.e., China should sell some of that big stack of dollars it has hidden under the mattress. But if China sells dollars, then the Yuan will rise off its peg.So the government of China needs to either put up, or shut up.Either way, the government of China has nobody to blame but itself. It should have let the Yuan float properly years ago, and then we might not be in quite as big a mess. Thu 11 Nov 2010 06:10:57 GMT+1 rodidog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=53#comment23 The power of the printing press is an important tool used to regulate inflation and deflation by decreasing or increasing the velocity of money in circulation. People make a mistake when they compare America printing money with the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic debt was in Francs, Dollars, and Pounds. The more money they printed to meet their debt obligations the less that money was worth when exchanged into those foreign currencies, which resulted in even more money needed to be printed. The result was hyper-inflation which meant Germany could no longer meets its debt obligation no matter how much money they printed, they ended up bartering resources (coal as an example) because their money was no longer good. All of America's debt is in dollars not foreign currency, this means no matter the exchange rate of the dollar our debt will always be worth the value of the dollar.Printing money will certainly result in higher inflation; however, the current rate is at 1.4% as a yearly average. You have to go back 60 years to find a lower yearly average. The average inflation rate for 2000 -2009 was 2.5% and for the 1990’s it was 3%. Those two decades resulted in a doubling of the US GDP from the 1980's. In short, we not only have room for more inflation we could use some. If printing money while having low inflation, coupled with budget cuts and increased revenue, results in balanced budgets and pay down on our debt, well, I’m all for it. Nations in the EU gave up their ability to regulate monetary policy when they gave up their national currency for the euro. I’m not surprised they find the practice unfair since they are powerless to affect their own economies through monetary policy. China, along with everyone else, is upset they might lose money in exchanging dollars into other currency. All they can do, along with everyone else, is complain and refuse to buy future debt offerings and degrade the value of the dollar. Doing so will cost them even more money, because in the end, we only owe them dollars no matter how little they might be worth. Thu 11 Nov 2010 05:55:01 GMT+1 AndreaNY http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=51#comment22 11. SusqueHannah:I think that everybody who is part of my generation needs to rise up and say "The buck stops with us. ...************Your generation needs to recognize that you are in a competitive race with many other countries. First, figure out how to compete. Then, do it in a way that is acceptable to your value system. But you have to realize you don't exist in a vacuum, and you certainly don't exist in a world as you'd like it to be. You exist in the world as it is. That's the world you will be forced to deal with. And it's not always pretty. Regardless of how nice you are, you are not going to change countries and their cultures. Finally, be prepared for events, such as 9/11 and the economic meltdown, to change everything. Problems arise for every generation. Yours will probably cause some for the next generation. And then they'll blame you. Thu 11 Nov 2010 05:40:31 GMT+1 AndreaNY http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=48#comment21 14. MagicKirin:Well the biapartsian commission that Obama formed came out with their findings.Which would require sacrfice from all sectors.Who opposes it immediatly Pelosi and Bernie Sanders.*************Dems are positioning themselves to be the protectors of Social Security. Thu 11 Nov 2010 05:22:52 GMT+1 stewart redfern http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=46#comment20 The truth of it is that it does not matter what Obama or Palin have to say. They are each speaking from the same shared view of reality. Until we choose as a nation and a world to see that true prosperity lies in an equitable bistribution of wealth and wellbeing then no amount of words will do anything to change our current situation to a better outcome. When each individual in the world strives to do that which they are here to do to the best of their ability and acummulate only that which they need to be comfortable then shall we see a true begining of world prosperity Thu 11 Nov 2010 04:28:02 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=44#comment19 This post has been Removed Thu 11 Nov 2010 02:28:26 GMT+1 New Orleans Real Estate http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=41#comment18 This post has been Removed Thu 11 Nov 2010 02:09:38 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=39#comment17 13. At 11:52pm on 10 Nov 2010, Scott0962 wrote:"Every war is just and necessary at the time. Only history decides which are a just war and which are hust a war..."No, that's total nonsense put out by people who refuse to take any responsibility for their own ethical bankruptcy. Only the complacent, selfish and lazy are content to let history decide: the rest of us make an attempt to understand what makes a "just war" in general, and what makes a particular war just or unjust in detail.Maybe SusqueHannah's generation will quit making excuses for itself like you people do. Meanwhile, the United States hasn't been doing a real stellar job on the theoretical Just War front -- and it shows in the practical results. Thu 11 Nov 2010 01:54:34 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=37#comment16 11. At 11:09pm on 10 Nov 2010, SusqueHannah wrote:"I think that everybody who is part of my generation needs to rise up and say "The buck stops with us. Our parents and grandparents made terrible mistakes economically. They ruined our good reputation around the world and overused credit. They got us into useless wars and promoted over consumption. We will do different. We will work hard, pay our debts, tighten our belts...and stay out of all wars save those that are truly just and necessary."And then we need to do it."A little hurt by the generalization there SusqueHannah. Some of us have been in the trenches against all of that you ascribe to us for a very long time.Still, close enough. Bravo, Godspeed and may your generation have a lot more luck on the war thing than mine did. Thu 11 Nov 2010 01:41:17 GMT+1 Arrrgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=34#comment15 But at the end of the day it's only rock and roll. We sit on a plant over populated consuming resources and not just killing the plant but ourselves. Where is it all going to end. O I've just answered that already. Anyway Nigel turned to his wife and asked, "Do you think QE will make any difference to the price of fish". Thu 11 Nov 2010 00:32:04 GMT+1 ann arbor http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=32#comment14 Re: #1, diverticulosisActually "Inflate It Away" is very much consistent with the POTUS and his backing.1) "Raise Taxes" - inflation actually serves as a tax against both wealth and income. If your income can maintain purchasing power, you are moved to a higher tax bracket by the numeric values. If you try to shelter your wealth from inflation (IE: precious metals, foreign investments), when you sell your assets for the same purchasing power, again you pay income tax on the numeric gains.2) "Cut Spending" - watch for the Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLA) to be stopped and non-union compensation to not appreciate as quickly as the currency is devalued. The net affect is "cut spending". Certainly the long term contract currently issued will not be adjusted for inflation.3) "Inflate it away" - As our leader has ZERO financial experience (Still!), in his mind we could just print money (electronically in the Federal Reserve), and bypass this whole federal debt business anyway. It was very sad to see him publicly rationalize this last "quantitative easing". You would think he would have attended at least one macro economics class in college and actually paid attention.I suspect Obama is getting advice stemming from the late 1970's when it was believed you can not have high-unemployment and high-inflation at the same time. Even then we knew the academics were ignoring the economics of Germany in the 1920's (high-debt, high-unemployment, hyper-inflation.) Then again, maybe someone is interested in going that far back. Thu 11 Nov 2010 00:26:44 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=30#comment13 Well the biapartsian commission that Obama formed came out with their findings.Which would require sacrfice from all sectors.Who opposes it immediatly Pelosi and Bernie Sanders.So much for the liberal wing of the Democratics party or a socialist looking to solve problems constructivly Thu 11 Nov 2010 00:03:57 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=27#comment12 re.#11. At 11:09pm on 10 Nov 2010, SusqueHannah wrote:"...and stay out of all wars save those that are truly just and necessary."Every war is just and necessary at the time. Only history decides which are a just war and which are hust a war.. Wed 10 Nov 2010 23:52:13 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=25#comment11 So China is seriously disturbed that the US government would try to manipulate the US currency in order to achieve domestic results, possibly at the expense of other countries. Does anyone here know the Chinese [Mandarin or Cantonese] for hypocrite? Wed 10 Nov 2010 23:35:30 GMT+1 SusqueHannah http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=23#comment10 I think that everybody who is part of my generation needs to rise up and say "The buck stops with us. Our parents and grandparents made terrible mistakes economically. They ruined our good reputation around the world and overused credit. They got us into useless wars and promoted over consumption. We will do different. We will work hard, pay our debts, tighten our belts...and stay out of all wars save those that are truly just and necessary."And then we need to do it. Wed 10 Nov 2010 23:09:38 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=20#comment9 re.#1. At 8:31pm on 10 Nov 2010, diverticulosis wrote:There are three possible cures for the US debt ills.1) Raise taxes. That's not going to happen and not the smartest thing to do during a weak economy.2) Cut spending. The vast majority of the US budget is social services (social security, medicare, medicate, UI, etc.) That's not going to happen, the public is too attached to the gov't teat.3) Inflate it away.----------------And the first two require political courage. Wed 10 Nov 2010 22:22:57 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=18#comment8 6. At 9:30pm on 10 Nov 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:"Dearest Curt the Carpenter:Your jokes about cat food are less funny when you've heard stories..."Jokes?Quite agree with your BTW though. In the olden days -- in the Deep South anyway -- you could always count on one or two hotdogs and a cold beer from your candidates during campaign season. Now all we get is enough hot air to cook our own hotdog, if we have one. Still, I guess the local TV outlets do OK by it all. Wed 10 Nov 2010 22:14:22 GMT+1 US airspace http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=16#comment7 Everyone wants US to be a consumption economy, so they can export their way to richness. It is a failed logic, and it can not work. It is a two way street, and the day of reckoning has arrived! Wed 10 Nov 2010 21:37:41 GMT+1 DenverGuest http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=13#comment6 2. At 8:52pm on 10 Nov 2010, BluesBerry wrote: "Just as the US much change, so to must those economies that have previously relied on exports to offset weaknesses in their own demand. A rebalancing of the sources of global demand, along with market determination of exchange rates that reverses significant undervaluation, are the best base for the shifts needed to bring about the vigorous and well-balanced recovery that we all want."Uh, I beg your pardon. This has got to be the very best example I have ever seen of BS baffles brains! Read the thing slowly...If I'm not mistaken, I think Obama is saying artificial manipulation of supply & demand is the best bases for a well-balanced recovery." Who is he kidding?Q.E. keeps the dollar weak and makes American exports cheaper. Sounds like cheating to me.------------------------------------------------Bluesberry: I think he's referring to 'artificially' levelling the playing field to counteract China's practice of artificially manipulating their own currency. Do two 'artifical manipulations' make a right? I don't know, but it's in the USA's best interest for him to do so. Wed 10 Nov 2010 21:30:24 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=11#comment5 Dearest Curt the Carpenter:Your jokes about cat food are less funny when you've heard stories from urban social workers about families who actually had to stoop that low in recent decades. BTW: If the funds spent on US political campaigns this past month or so had been spent helping out America's Impoverished families, we'd all have been a little better off. (Unless, of course, we develop the technology for low income households to eat politician's words for them... that would fix lots of problems, don't you think?) Wed 10 Nov 2010 21:30:17 GMT+1 BienvenueEnLouisiana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=9#comment4 I find it interesting that certain members of the G20 would criticize the Obama Adm. & the Fed for its monetary policies. Could it be that they actually agree with the Tea Party about austerity in America? Let the irony sink in..diverticulosis, don't be too quick to dismiss cuts in the US...you don't see people rioting in the streets over it. Not yet anyways.. Wed 10 Nov 2010 20:55:06 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=6#comment3 Doesn't the Dollar have a long-standing reputation for being weak compared to Europe? Gosh! It's an American Tradition!... and ya'll keep sayin' we ain't got no traditions. Ha.Actually, I fully expected continued hiccups in our international markets until further standards are agreed upon. I'm not surprised we waited until after elections to post the funds & I'm glad they had enough transparency to effect them prior to the G20.Ah! Global Economy! What a fun show! Popcorn anyone? (It's packaged in America.) Wed 10 Nov 2010 20:54:20 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=4#comment2 Well, I was interested in the Devine Ms. Sarah's National Review bit -- but absolutely delighted by the first comment, which reads in part:"It is a sad day for conservatives when the National Review, whose pages were once graced with the editorial pen of a towering intellect, William F Buckley, accepts Sara Palin as an commentator on anything, much less the subject of economics where she is woefully out of her depth. But then again where is this tiny, tiny intellect not out of her depth except when shooting Grizzlies or cheering on her snow sledding hisband?"Oh my oh my! Life is, indeed, a cabaret.PS: @1. We -could-, of course, do all three at the same time, although 3) will (quite rightly, it seems to me) irritate the hell out of our creditors. But never mind. All three, each in moderation, seems the right course to me.BTW, there are a few of us geezers that think a modest cut in our social security of a few percent might make just sense given the debt and deficit. Besides, Purina cat products are really quite tasty when you heat them up and serve them on day-old toast. We'd get by somehow, and feel better for having the chance to do our bit.We write the President and the AARP about this, but so far they are ignoring us. Wed 10 Nov 2010 20:53:51 GMT+1 BluesBerry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=2#comment1 The German finance minister called Q.E. "sly" and "clueless". Very blunt, but I agree. The Chinese promise "frank discussions" about what they have suggested is an irresponsible policy. Very polite, but I still agree.Germany and China are not alone.Brazil says Q.E. will cause "distortions". Of course it will cause distortions. You can't artificially manipulate your currency (like Monopoly Money); at some point all countries, especially the United States must stop with the artificial nonsence - bailouts, TARP, and now Q.E. Countries must allow markets to react honestly to supply and demand. As long as the United States continues economic games, it might as well climb the highest American mountain and shout: "We are the most conceited nation in the world. We can do anything! If you don't like it, let's have a war. Our imperialist/capitalist economy demands a good war."South Korea say they will "aggressively" counter its effects. Good luck, South Korea.America is cheating, fiddling with its currency in order to make its exports cheaper. How long, I wonder, do they think they can play this game - five years, ten years, forever?President Barack Obama:"Just as the US much change, so to must those economies that have previously relied on exports to offset weaknesses in their own demand. A rebalancing of the sources of global demand, along with market determination of exchange rates that reverses significant undervaluation, are the best base for the shifts needed to bring about the vigorous and well-balanced recovery that we all want."Uh, I beg your pardon. This has got to be the very best example I have ever seen of BS baffles brains! Read the thing slowly...If I'm not mistaken, I think Obama is saying artificial manipulation of supply & demand is the best bases for a well-balanced recovery." Who is he kidding?Q.E. keeps the dollar weak and makes American exports cheaper. Sounds like cheating to me.Not only the Germans but the entire world should be irate because Q.E., money printing, inflation and political instability are on the horizon.If I was China, I would "call" the American bonds upon maturity (no revewals), but then I am not as kind or polite as most Chinese. Wed 10 Nov 2010 20:52:24 GMT+1 diverticulosis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/quantifying_anger_at_the_feds_1.html?page=0#comment0 There are three possible cures for the US debt ills.1) Raise taxes. That's not going to happen and not the smartest thing to do during a weak economy.2) Cut spending. The vast majority of the US budget is social services (social security, medicare, medicate, UI, etc.) That's not going to happen, the public is too attached to the gov't teat.3) Inflate it away. Wed 10 Nov 2010 20:31:11 GMT+1