by argent_pur » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:05 am
A good article, and it does make sense to a degree...
Based on what I know about how GDP is calculated (C+I+G+NX), we all know, regardless of political camp, that eventually taxes will have to come up and government spending (G) will have to come down in a meaningful way to close the annual deficits and actually start paying back some of this debt. Increased taxes mean less disposable income, so consumption (C) goes down. C is 70% of GDP and G is about 20%...this is the deflation Ben wants to avoid so much. It will happen so the only solution will be for the Fed to buy bonds (i.e. "print money") at a terrible rate, ending up in high inflation (I hope not hyperinflation, but we'll see).
And, honestly, it's no more than we deserve. Our standard of living (think about everything that is included in that phrase from our roads to our military to our social programs) has not been justified by our productive capacity for some time, thus the need for the government to borrow to finance the rest. There is no magic hat, more consumption today means less tomorrow, and since our major manufacturing jobs are all leaving, can we really expect an ever-rising standard of living based on a service (70% of aggregate expenditure) economy making sandwiches and buffalo wings? The world doesn't need them that badly...
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth...Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."
-Don't know who said it, but it's awesome;)