I would like to start a discussion about economics in the UK, US and the Eurozone

[mcichocki]

The reality is most people will never know the intricasies that govern their lives. Governmental policy is merely a series if band aids hoping to get it right for mist of the people. The question to ask ultimately is how things affect you directly.

At the risk of sounding cliche and utopian...people should actually be asking what they can do for their country. Or at least ask what your country can do differently to provide widespread benefit. The reason America is in the $hitter is most people only worry about their own ego, personal gain and selfish/foolish party loyalty. Being a monetary society it's very easy for the leaders & "capitalist" minority to divide & conquer the majority. Pluck capital from the domestic economy and/or enact policies that take from the employed & provide for the un/under employed. Reducing the general quality of life, talk about a sure fire way to nurture a dog eat dog environment.

Added---
The perfect government would have a very minor role in our lives. They would uphold/enforce contracts, defend the nation from direct attack and protect our COLLECTIVE liberty. The government today is used to extract 1 "sides" liberty so as to increase liberty or the feeling of safety for the other "side". The fact most take a "side" reflects our inability to understand just how co-dependent we actually are. Currency offers us a feeling of independence, we disregard the other side of the transaction. No longer do we think about the labor/materials that went into what we just bought. It just appeared, like magic. LOL

[stealth_swimmer]

You left out one variable that should matter...and one that people should vote by; morality. This is where our country is failing...and at a rapid rate of derailing.

It fits within most people's morality...

And most people vote based on what makes them feel good. They don't always vote in their own economic interest (though many do) - because the fact is that as an individual, your vote can't change the outcome of the election, let alone determine public policy. If each individual's vote made a big difference, they would probably vote differently...assuming they could actually connect the dots between public policy and what it results in (often times, it's too complex for the average person to know, especially since some policy take years before they really start affecting things)

[mslman71]

At the risk of sounding cliche and utopian...people should actually be asking what they can do for their country. Or at least ask what your country can do differently to provide widespread benefit. .

Anytime someone hints at putting the collective first I cringe. I will not willingly agree to support policy that ultimately decouples me from the right to choose my own path under the guise doing what's good for the country as a whole. I am not anyone's property and most of the time this "ask not what your country can do for you" business is just another way of asking you to give up something you'll never get back on the hopes that it might somehow make things better down the road, either monetarily or by some promise of improved safety. The individual comes first, not the collective.

[mslman71]

As long as the government continues to erode my constitutional rights I'll continue to use the term democracy gents. We may have been "framed" as a constitutional republic but it seems we've veered off course and into the ditch as far as the concept is concerned. Do you guys really feel our constitution is being upheld and is restricting government powers? NDAA and Patriot Act jump out at me personally.

Which is why I qualified my statement with "At one time we were in practice, now it seems we are moreso in appearance, since the SCOTUS is all but a rubber stamp for whatever hair brained ideas Congress and the POTUS sell to the American public as a whole. "

I would definitely not call it a Democracy, however. It is now a bastardized hybrid of god knows what, at least in practice, but I haven't lost all hope.

[mcichocki]

Anytime someone hints at putting the collective first I cringe. I will not willingly agree to support policy that ultimately decouples me from the right to choose my own path under the guise doing what's good for the country as a whole. I am not anyone's property and most of the time this "ask not what your country can do for you" business is just another way of asking you to give up something you'll never get back on the hopes that it might somehow make things better down the road, either monetarily or by some promise of improved safety. The individual comes first, not the collective.

If you prefer individualism you can always move to the woods and leave civilization in your rear view bro. When you choose to partake in & benefit from society you no longer have the right to operate on that selfish wavelength. My take on civilized life is simple...do whatever the fcuk you want provided you aren't impacting another persons quality of life without consent. This is my "golden rule" if you will. Do you honestly think you should be able to choose your own path regardless of how you're impacting others? If so you don't belong in civilization, you would be the opposite of civil.

People that fail to acknowledge human equality are simply suffering from lack of insight. What if your parents put themselves first as individuals, focusing on career or selfish desires and you were left in the crib? What if society (teachers, neighbors etc...) repeatedly told you "fcuk you, I have my own stuff to worry about"? How quickly most forget just how important we are to each other in reality. What you said amounts to "I'm willing to take what I can from society and don't care to return the favor". I don't know how old you are but hopefully some day you entertain & embrace the reality that EVERYTHING in life is cyclical.

I would definitely not call it a Democracy, however. It is now a bastardized hybrid of god knows what, at least in practice, but I haven't lost all hope.

Let's just call it individualism. When a cycle stops............

[mslman71]

If you prefer individualism you can always move to the woods and leave civilization in your rear view bro. When you choose to partake in & benefit from society you no longer have the right to operate on that selfish wavelength. My take on civilized life is simple...do whatever the fcuk you want provided you aren't impacting another persons quality of life without consent. This is my "golden rule" if you will. Do you honestly think you should be able to choose your own path regardless of how you're impacting others? If so you don't belong in civilization, you would be the opposite of civil.

People that fail to acknowledge human equality are simply suffering from lack of insight. What if your parents put themselves first as individuals, focusing on career or selfish desires and you were left in the crib? What if society (teachers, neighbors etc...) repeatedly told you "fcuk you, I have my own stuff to worry about"? How quickly most forget just how important we are to each other in reality. What you said amounts to "I'm willing to take what I can from society and don't care to return the favor". I don't know how old you are but hopefully some day you entertain & embrace the reality that EVERYTHING in life is cyclical.

Let's just call it individualism. When a cycle stops............

Choosing to put others first on a case by case basis as a matter of free will is different than being forced to do something because someone told you that doing so is a selfless act. It's complete horse-****.

As for the agreement between me and society. My agreement is simple. I will choose to act how I act, based on my own sense of morality and my willingness to deal with the consequences and risks of making choices that differ with those that have been "agreed upon" by society as a whole. Being generous and responsible is not synonymous with turning over your right to free choice and constitutional protections to some band of jackwads in DC. Just because some set of actions looks better on paper for society as a whole does not mean it is inherently the right thing to do. Would it be worth it to me to surrender my right to political opinion if I had a guarantee that no children in the world would ever starve again? No. Extreme example, but we seem to be using the extremes as examples. The act of extrapolating the concept of individual liberties above all else to some sort of equivalent of living like Jeremiah Johnson is nonsense. They are not the same thing and as for whether or not I am classified as civil? I don't care.

Seriously though, I'm a generous and respectful guy. I appreciate the role of the federal government and local governments and the benefits they provide. I'm not naive.

[mcichocki]

You have obviously never read a single post by mslman.

You are looking like an ass.

I have not followed his past forum activity, no. I engaged without context nor bias, I'm merely responding to his quote "The individual comes first, not the collective". Perhaps this is out of context? Please provide me with more context so I may either claim my title as "ass" or carry on about my business.

[mslman71]

Of course you took it out of context and of course you did it with bias.

Otherwise you would not have "merely responded to his quote".

Hint- it wasn't a "quote".

No sweat, I jumped in on a hot button issue for me and didn't provide context of my own.

I have not followed his past forum activity, no. I engaged without context nor bias, I'm merely responding to his quote "The individual comes first, not the collective". Perhaps this is out of context? Please provide me with more context so I may either claim my title as "ass" or carry on about my business.

My problem is largely with the expression as a legislative battle cry, sorta like the whole safety thing, not the concept of working to better the lives of the people around me.

[mcichocki]

Choosing to put others first on a case by case basis as a matter of free will is different than being forced to do something because someone told you that doing so is a selfless act. It's complete horse-****.

As for the agreement between me and society. My agreement is simple. I will choose to act how I act, based on my own sense of morality and my willingness to deal with the consequences and risks of making choices that differ with those that have been "agreed upon" by society as a whole. Being generous and responsible is not synonymous with turning over your right to free choice and constitutional protections to some band of jackwads in DC. Just because some set of actions looks better on paper for society as a whole does not mean it is inherently the right thing to do. Would it be worth it to me to surrender my right to political opinion if I had a guarantee that no children in the world would ever starve again? No. Extreme example, but we seem to be using the extremes as examples. The act of extrapolating the concept of individual liberties above all else to some sort of equivalent of living like Jeremiah Johnson is nonsense. They are not the same thing and as for whether or not I am classified as civil? I don't care.

Seriously though, I'm a generous and respectful guy. I appreciate the role of the federal government and local governments and the benefits they provide. I'm not naive.

Please see my last post and also note I made not 1 harsh statement, I was asking questions. I respect deep interaction and appreciate the additional context you just supplied. I think we're pretty much on the same page oddly enough. I certainly don't stand for forcing people to do things against their will, thus my "golden rule". I apologize if my commentary was somehow was misread and to the same point I'm sorry your quote with its minimal context led me to respond as I did.

[mcichocki]

Of course you took it out of context and of course you did it with bias.

Otherwise you would not have "merely responded to his quote".

Hint- it wasn't a "quote".

"The individual comes first, not the collective"
This WAS a quote from his post. There was some context in the same post, it's not like I totally polarized the quote.

I respect you are in his fan club. I am now as well, it's all good.

Great apology.

Thanks. I was shooting for good, to be told it was great made my night. xoxo

PS: Thanks for isolating a chunk of my post while bashing me for omitting context. WINK WINK

[mcichocki]

No sweat, I jumped in on a hot button issue for me and didn't provide context of my own.

My problem is largely with the expression as a legislative battle cry, sorta like the whole safety thing, not the concept of working to better the lives of the people around me.

Why is eomrat acting so aggressive towards me and acting like he's defending his kid? LOL
I apologized in my own way, let a mutha****a have some dignity eomrat! It was a misunderstanding not an assault.

I fully agree with and respect the last part 100%. I'm going through $hit in NY right now where as a gun owner I'm at risk of becoming an overnight felon thanks to some overly liberal pu$$ies wanting to feel "safe". Safe from what, a law abiding citizen? If they disarm the people who will keep them "safe" from the criminals or the government?

[mslman71]

"The individual comes first, not the collective"
This WAS a quote from his post. There was some context in the same post, it's not like I totally polarized the quote.

Yes, and I stand by it, as written. You, as an individual, have a right to speak your mind, to practice your faith, etc. I have no particular religious faith but your right to practice it as you see fit is as important to me as my right to not practice it. I am putting the value of the choice of the individual above whatever society decides would be best for it. If most people thought we'd all be better off if we were all Pentecostal, and even if they were right, I still wouldn't support it. That's what I mean, but again, your freedoms as an individual are as important to me as mine (even if it is for selfish reasons).

I respect you are in his fan club. I am now as well, it's all good.
Thanks. I was shooting for good, to be told it was great made my night. xoxo

No fan clubs.

[mcichocki]

Yes, and I stand by it, as written. You, as an individual, have a right to speak your mind, to practice your faith, etc. I have no particular religious faith but your right to practice it as you see fit is as important to me as my right to not practice it. I am putting the value of the choice of the individual above whatever society decides would be best for it. If most people thought we'd all be better off if we were all Pentecostal, and even if they were right, I still wouldn't support it. That's what I mean, but again, your freedoms as an individual are as important to me as mine (even if it is for selfish reasons).

No fan clubs.

As it was written now that I understand the context I'm on board. It was taken out of context as was our misunderstanding, sorry. If there isn't a fan club can I ask for a truce at least?

[mslman71]

As it was written now that I understand the context I'm on board. It was taken out of context as was our misunderstanding, sorry. If there isn't a fan club can I ask for a truce at least?

Truce? No conflict here. I like political discussions and it's one of the few opportunities I have to go native red and use terms like horsepucky and horse **** but it isn't intended as a sign of agression. I just talk that way.

[mcichocki]

Truce? No conflict here. I like political discussions and it's one of the few opportunities I have to go native red and use terms like horsepucky and horse **** but it isn't intended as a sign of agression. I just talk that way.

Related question, what are your thoughts on infrastructure planning to cite one example where a group vote may be important. Issues of faith or where personal consequence is at stake...I say let freedom ring. Issues where the fallout would be systemic, what then? This isn't a loaded question or bait, I struggle with what I feel an acceptable level of oversight or central planning might be.

[EjnarKolinkar]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-s-dot-economy

Enjoyed this article today. QE Infinity and Banks must own more low risk assets skewing the Bond market? White house does seem a tad bit optimistic, which helps to meet deficit goals.

[icafe]

Economically conservative. I believe in freedom and less government. The only areas I do not agree with my conservative cohorts are on marriage of gay people and abortion. I think government should stay out of who is allowed to marry based on sexual preference. I also believe in the right to choose in abortion, as long as my tax money isn't paying for it.

What pissed me off the most is that people get free money/benefits for nothing. No one should get a free ride. If you collect welfare and get your kids childcare paid for; you should be a government program to make you earn part of that money by picking up trash or w/e, not sit on your ass while others pay.

The second thing that pisses me off is regulations on businesses and unions. I'm not even a business owner, but all this bullsh!t about who can hire who, having to pay for healthcare, and government benefits. How ridiculous is it that teachers basically can't be fired and are not fired based on performance.

Obama and his sycophantic *** boys like Chris Matthews piss me off. Obama and the senate are going to ruin this country. They can't figure out how to cut 85Billion dollars when we are almost 17trillion in debt? They are retards. They'll never get us out of debt, because they aren't willing to cut 2% of just the ANNUAL budget. The house and republicans have tried to push 3 bills to change the sequestration and they have been denied because they don't have loop hole closes and aren't raising taxes. It's so asinine that's it was their own bill and now they are crying that the Republicans won't raise taxes to stop their own bill.

Donuts piss me off too. They ruin my cutting cycles.

Isn't 85 billion only a half of a percent of 17 trillion? where does this 2% figure come from?
Id vote for a 25% + reduction in spending until we get our debts and budgets figured out. We should be better than this.

We borrow money just to pay interest on money that we already borrowed. How stupid are these people? Obama ran his campaign on fiscal responsibility in 08. =fail. How da faq are we supposed to be funding a national health care plan when we can't even pay the interest payments on. our debt¿¿¿ = retarded.

The only thing these congress members care about is getting re elected so they are too scared cut budgets and lose votes.
Ahhh. rant over. :-)

I vote for whatever 3rd party candidate is available on the ballot to protest the 2party monopoly. They (dem.and rep.)won't even let anyone come to the debates because they know they will get slaughtered at the podium by someone with common sense fresh ideas. so they cooperate with media to silence all other parties. . :-)

[Wyomann]

Isn't 85 billion only a half of a percent of 17 trillion? where does this 2% figure come from?

Originally I said this "They can't figure out how to cut 85Billion dollars when we are almost 17trillion in debt? They are retards. They'll never get us out of debt, because they aren't willing to cut 2% of just the ANNUAL budget. "
Maybe it wasn't clear enough, but 85 billion is about 2% of our ANNUAL budget, not 2% of the total debt we have which is nearing 17trillion.

[icafe]

Originally I said this "They can't figure out how to cut 85Billion dollars when we are almost 17trillion in debt? They are retards. They'll never get us out of debt, because they aren't willing to cut 2% of just the ANNUAL budget. "
Maybe it wasn't clear enough, but 85 billion is about 2% of our ANNUAL budget, not 2% of the total debt we have which is nearing 17trillion.

Indeed you are correct sir.

[mslman71]

Related question, what are your thoughts on infrastructure planning to cite one example where a group vote may be important. Issues of faith or where personal consequence is at stake...I say let freedom ring. Issues where the fallout would be systemic, what then? This isn't a loaded question or bait, I struggle with what I feel an acceptable level of oversight or central planning might be.

Flexible, or case by case if you prefer. I can say what I don't like, and that's having the federal government take money from the citizens of the states and then extort them into complying with federal regulations to get that same money back. Examples are local and state highway projects that are not a part of the interstate transportation system or the education system, especially at the primary level. They take money from us and won't give it back unless we comply with their educational guidelines, which appear largely to consist of measuring test taking aptitude. I don't know about other places but all local teachers seem to do is stress out about standardized tests because their funding is based on it. We could turn it down, of course, but that doesn't mean the feds wouldn't keep pulling money out of the citizens' pockets so we're caught between a rock and a hard place. I'd be more than willing to take a point or two hit and even pay a state income tax if we could be untangled from them.

On the other hand, I am liberal when it comes to large scale *true* interstate programs, be it in the form of transportation, communication, distribution, science, etc. Hell, I even appreciate the role of the FDA and the EPA even if I disagree with some of the practices and policies that come out of them.

[CardiMuscles]

May I first of say "Thank you". When I start a topic I always let it run a few days in order to generate discussions and usually come back to find it has been hijacked by people saying things such as "You're gay for not being an Obama supporter", so to find three pages of genuine discussion on economic matters is a huge relief. Secondly, when the UK had it's downgrade the ten year gilt (our version of ten year treasury bonds) were yielding 2.109%, however at the close of trade on Friday they were yielding 1.871% (a change of 11.28%) and I have been led to believe that since the US downgrade, ten year treasury bond yields have also dropped like a stone. Could I ask therefore why this may have happened?

[dbx]

May I first of say "Thank you". When I start a topic I always let it run a few days in order to generate discussions and usually come back to find it has been hijacked by people saying things such as "You're gay for not being an Obama supporter", so to find three pages of genuine discussion on economic matters is a huge relief. Secondly, when the UK had it's downgrade the ten year gilt (our version of ten year treasury bonds) were yielding 2.109%, however at the close of trade on Friday they were yielding 1.871% (a change of 11.28%) and I have been led to believe that since the US downgrade, ten year treasury bond yields have also dropped like a stone. Could I ask therefore why this may have happened?

I can't speak intelligently regarding your question, specifically, but...everything is connected to U.S. "expectations". At least, to some degree. You guys are the bad boys, not adopting the euro and all, and you have your own microcosm cause/effect based on Europe's own misguided dealings (Italy, lately, for instance). I'm no economist, and as Harry Truman once said....lol...something about lining up a dozen economists and them all pointing in different directions.

But yes, when the U.S. sneezes, the world catches a cold.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Isn't 85 billion only a half of a percent of 17 trillion? where does this 2% figure come from?
Id vote for a 25% + reduction in spending until we get our debts and budgets figured out. We should be better than this.

I don't think I would support a 25% reduction at this time. The negative effect on the economy would be very stark. With deep austerity measures come deep valleys in GDP. I think the two have to be balanced. The important thing is to take corrective action while it is still plausible. Some of the anti-austerity articles I have read supporting Keynesian spend to stimulate in Europe seem far fetched when debt to GDP are factored in. Nations can develop "Roach" level credit status just like people can.

I listed to an interview with some Japanese economists regarding parallels between our situation and Japan's, with the general gist that we were following in their footsteps and trailing by a decade or so behind. One of the economists commented with enthusiasm that he though the fiscal cliff and the sequester was a good thing, that they had never had anything like that in Japan as a stopgap to the debt solves all problems approach.

Bloomberg Business week has had some similar articles on the similarities of the two economies, and the warning we should be taking here in the USA, we should be learning from Japan's recent history. Some interesting stuff, I enjoyed it.

I am a fan of the required austerity not to lose the credit rating. It takes pain, And it has a negative effect on the economy which sucks. What we all really need to do is put a tight leash on spending in the good times. That's the hard part, remembering when we are flush to rat hole every dollar we can into debt relief.

[mcichocki]

I don't think I would support a 25% reduction at this time. The negative effect on the economy would be very stark. With deep austerity measures come deep valleys in GDP. I think the two have to be balanced. The important thing is to take corrective action while it is still plausible. Some of the anti-austerity articles I have read supporting Keynesian spend to stimulate in Europe seem far fetched when debt to GDP are factored in. Nations can develop "Roach" level credit status just like people can.

I listed to an interview with some Japanese economists regarding parallels between our situation and Japan's, with the general gist that we were following in their footsteps and trailing by a decade or so behind. One of the economists commented with enthusiasm that he though the fiscal cliff and the sequester was a good thing, that they had never had anything like that in Japan as a stopgap to the debt solves all problems approach.

Bloomberg Business week has had some similar articles on the similarities of the two economies, and the warning we should be taking here in the USA, we should be learning from Japan's recent history. Some interesting stuff, I enjoyed it.

I am a fan of the required austerity not to lose the credit rating. It takes pain, And it has a negative effect on the economy which sucks. What we all really need to do is put a tight leash on spending in the good times. That's the hard part, remembering when we are flush to rat hole every dollar we can into debt relief.

I find the credit ratings comical. The rating agencies are on the take, if they were honestly grading developed nations we'd all be in junk status.
You hit the nail on the head, show restraint during the growth phase so there is a cushion to fall back on when inevitable economic contractions hit. Reps