# US 666 billion



## sags (May 15, 2010)

US deficit is 666 billion. Translated into Canadianism it would be 1/10th..........66 Billion.

Our deficit..........17 billion is a joke. We aren't really trying very hard with that low number.

Come on Justin.......loosen the purse strings. Send some cash out to poor seniors.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The US spends a ton of government money on their big industries. Silicon Valley grew nearly entirely out of massive government grants to companies many decades ago, and places like Intel and IBM were the beneficiaries of huge amounts of govt stimulus. It's difficult to quantify exactly how much, because it comes via different routes. Some of it is direct investment by government, some are R&D grants (through tons of different routes such as NSF, DARPA, and arms of the military), and some are special tax breaks -- which amounts to the same thing (govt financing).

Companies that you think of today as independently successful are often coasting on the big advantage that the US govt gave them. Silicon Valley is a great example.

Their aerospace and defense industries are current recipients of huge amounts as well, into the billions of $. And then there are the farm subsidies, support for auto makers, etc. Plus the banks of course, huge amounts of government borrowing across the various supports for Wall Street, Fannie Mae, AIG, etc.

For anyone who thinks that the US economy and their stock market is amazing and is something to inspire us, then you must appreciate that US federal debts are a huge part of that equation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL.........They should change their name to the United Socialists of America.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

US is lucky. Their debt is 100% priced in their own currency. They can devalue if it gets to be too much.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

The purse strings are already too loose and and deficits far more than what was promised. Running big deficits during good times isn't necessary. 

There are programs in place for poor seniors. If people want to help them out further let them donate their time and their own money. 

Countries with an enormous debts and significant issues with important social programs shouldn't be a reckless model for our country.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Extra money towards seniors is a poor investment. There are already 10 workers supporting each one of them. They should get jobs if its tough going. I worry much more about the kids carrying huge debt burdens for these social schemes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was thinking more along the lines of redistributing the money from the rich to struggling seniors.

As Ben Stein said just today.......don't worry about reducing taxes for the wealthy. They got plenty of money to spare.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

tygrus said:


> Extra money towards seniors is a poor investment. There are already 10 workers supporting each one of them. They should get jobs if its tough going. I worry much more about the kids carrying huge debt burdens for these social schemes.


 ? Most kids are all on cell phones playing video games in the basement with no job living @ home


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Giving money to seniors who need it is a good investment. They spend it right away and it goes back into circulation, boosting the economy. When government helps the old, the poor, the sick, the needy that is what happens. Eventually the money circulates around and ends up in the hands of big business, the rich, and the big banks but first it does a lot of good.

When you give money directly to the rich, the big banks, big business they stick it in their pockets. That is why there has been so little inflation in spite of the massive money pumping schemes of the last 10 years. It went into the pockets of the rich and most of it stayed there. In the US main street is starving while wall street is posting new gains. This is why trickle down economics doesn't work but trickle up does. The only fault with trickle up is the rich have to provide some kind of product or service people want before they get the money. They find it easier to get the money straight from the government.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

To be fair, the US unemployment rate has been below 5% for about 18 months. Some of that money did find its way into the US economy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The thinking in the old days was that if you give money to rich people, they will grow their businesses and therefore hire more people (and pay higher salaries to compete for those employees) and also pay for other products & services needed to operate the business. Makes sense, I can see that logic.

I think that's no longer valid, and the post-2000 world proves it. Wealthy business owners *don't need employees any more*, thanks to automation and outsourcing. The big corporations keep laying off more people and cutting costs further. This is great for their stock prices, but horrible for workers and the broad economy. Companies can be very successful, and can grow, without adding employee head count. Other cost areas (like finance & IT) are generally kept very low, even slashed further as they can be outsourced to virtually any poor country where people work for 1/4 our salaries.

Soon they will start automating and outsourcing legal services as well. More and more professionals (some of who currently earn 150K+ salaries) will soon realize that their jobs are unnecessary in the new economy.

I saw it first hand. At my last job (for a US giant) there was a huge push to automate many of our tasks -- it was a clear priority -- and _then_ they basically laid off our entire division while moving operations to Malaysia, where very intelligent and skilled engineers did the same work as us for about 1/3 or 1/4 the salary. I also hear about this from my friend on Bay Street. He works in the investment banking division of a Big Five bank. He was very lucky to stay employed through the 2008 crash, but the department fired everyone else and did NOT hire anyone back. Instead, they are automating everything -- there is no need for most of that investment banking staff. Many years into the economic recovery, his office has a fraction of the people it had a decade ago.

My guess is that in the end, we are going to end up with a few extremely large corporations that basically automate everything and operate with minimal employees. Everyone will be unemployed, while the stock prices keep soaring.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

lonewolf :) said:


> ? Most kids are all on cell phones playing video games in the basement with no job living @ home


That's a parental issue.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

TD Bank sends work to India..........along with their customer's personal information.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Globalization and automation are inevitable. 

Rich people will invest abroad or in companies that automate and outsource. 

Middle class people will purchase luxury goods that are made abroad. In the future, they will buy ultra cheap goods made by robots and AI.

We don’t know that there will be massive unemployment. There will be upheaval but new technology and globalization may also lead to greater abundance and better jobs.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The thinking in the old days was that if you give money to rich people, they will grow their businesses and therefore hire more people (and pay higher salaries to compete for those employees) and also pay for other products & services needed to operate the business. Makes sense, I can see that logic.
> 
> I think that's no longer valid, and the post-2000 world proves it. Wealthy business owners *don't need employees any more*, thanks to automation and outsourcing. The big corporations keep laying off more people and cutting costs further. This is great for their stock prices, but horrible for workers and the broad economy. Companies can be very successful, and can grow, without adding employee head count. Other cost areas (like finance & IT) are generally kept very low, even slashed further as they can be outsourced to virtually any poor country where people work for 1/4 our salaries.
> 
> ...


Jesus, that sounds pretty dire...

We should probably close the borders to the west to bring our populations down, keep employment regulations to a minimum so that people can be hired and work in all sorts of new and unusual configurations, and make sure that family structures remain strong central to our culture so that those who flat-out are unemployable still have someone to care for them and love them. Don't you think?

I'm sure that's what the government has in store for us. I'm not worried.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> We should probably close the borders to the west to bring our populations down, keep employment regulations to a minimum so that people can be hired and work in all sorts of new and unusual configurations, and make sure that family structures remain strong central to our culture so that those who flat-out are unemployable still have someone to care for them and love them. Don't you think?


I think immigrants are important to have, because they will continue to innovate and can create new businesses or find other solutions out of this (long term) mess. This is a long term story and you can't simply shut off immigration.

We don't know how this will shake out long term. Immigration is like diversification (of genetics and ideas) and that's a vital asset to the country no matter what conditions lie ahead. Steve Jobs's biological father was an immigrant from Syria, by the way.


----------

