Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
A slope of 0.021 means doubling every 33 years. That's maybe a small slope if we're asking what will happen in our lifetime (it's still asking for a doubling in productivity between entering and leaving the workforce), but not so small if we ask what will happen in our grandchildren's lifetimes....

Well .. recall that in our children's lifetime both population and technology growth in certain sectors will have grown exponentially as well.

Population growth (of the workforce) alone could theoretically reach a 2% rate. In any case, I personally agree with the notion that a fair amount of the US's economic growth is not safely sustainable... I actually run into some idealistic overlap with libertarians on this topic

As I mentioned, the data I was fitting were per capita. If we do the same for the total population we get a 3.3% rate, so about 1.2% of the increase in real gdp can be attributed to population growth. If we look at nominal gdp the fits aren't as good, but the rate is 7.2% for the total population and 6% per capita, the same 1.2% difference, and 3.9% higher than the real gdp (which normalizes prices).

So, the nominal gdp of the U.S., taking the data from 1950 to 2008, increases at a rate of 3.9% due to inflation, 1.2% due to the increased workforce, and 2.1% due to other sources (e.g. technology).

Ahh... I thought you were bothered by the exponential nature of the growth.



We probably won't maintain even the population growth portion (indeed current pop growth is down to 0.9%). As for whether our other advances can make up for population and even maintain it's own current rate ... I'd guess we have a few more decades of life in that area of growth.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Ahh... I thought you were bothered by the exponential nature of the growth.

That is the part that I'm bothered by. Exponential growth isn't sustainable and it seems that the economy depends on it. Of course, it may be sustainable for quite some time yet, in which case we maybe shouldn't worry just like we don't worry about how much what we do contributes to the heat death of the universe.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
In my view, I don't think we would have won WWII without the New Deal. For example, the electrification projects of the New Deal, major public works projects that built dams and brought hydroelectric power to the North West and other parts of the country, provided the power for the aircraft factories and ship yards that built a major portion of our arsenal. If those facilities had not be built before the war, the delay that would have followed from having to build them first could easily have cost us the war. The Japanese came very close to winning in the Pacific, a lot closer than most people realize.

That's an interesting topic, domestic Keynesianism as national defense. The counter to that argument is what may have instead been done with that capital and how might that have effected the war effort, but i really like your theory.

Probably the biggest news from the last day or so that things aren't quite going in the right direction comes from the FDIC which insures bank depositors accounts here in the United States:

Quote:
With bank failures rising, the government's deposit insurance fund fell 20 percent to $10.4 billion in the second quarter as U.S. banks lost $3.7 billion.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. says surging levels of soured loans at banks dragged down profits in the April-June period. The $3.7 billion loss compared with profits of $7.6 billion in the first quarter, and $4.7 billion a year ago.

The FDIC says the number of banks deemed to be in trouble jumped to 416 from 305 at the end of the first quarter.

Here's a key part that was buried several paragraphs into the article:

Quote:
So far this year, 81 banks have failed, compared with just 25 last year — and only three in 2007. Hundreds more banks are expected to fall in coming years because of souring loans for commercial real estate. That threatens to deplete the FDIC's fund.

So we are 2/3rds of the way through the year and 81 banks failed so far. At this rate, we'll have 125 failures by the end of the year, a 500 percent increase from last year, and a whopping 4167 percent from the year before.

Quote: Original post by cyansoft

So far this year, 81 banks have failed, compared with just 25 last year — and only three in 2007. Hundreds more banks are expected to fall in coming years because of souring loans for commercial real estate. That threatens to deplete the FDIC's fund.

There's still 80ish banks or more with current day Texas Ratios in the 200s+.
100+ means you're somewhat liekly to fail, 200s is just a matter of time really. Frankly, I expect all of the money that the fed is pumping into these banks will hit the market via bankruptcy.

It's really a jacked up strategy. I believe they're(the current administration) just trying to hold off on complete collapse until after the next presidential election. Not that I'm putting the current problems on Obama, the next set of problems wuill be his, this stretches all the way back to Nixon and each of his successors if you want to trace it back that far.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
In my view, I don't think we would have won WWII without the New Deal. For example, the electrification projects of the New Deal, major public works projects that built dams and brought hydroelectric power to the North West and other parts of the country, provided the power for the aircraft factories and ship yards that built a major portion of our arsenal. If those facilities had not be built before the war, the delay that would have followed from having to build them first could easily have cost us the war. The Japanese came very close to winning in the Pacific, a lot closer than most people realize.

That's an interesting topic, domestic Keynesianism as national defense. The counter to that argument is what may have instead been done with that capital and how might that have effected the war effort, but i really like your theory.

Bear in mind that the hypothesis is formed in hindsight. National defense was not the purpose behind those public works projects at the time they were built, at least, not in the military sense. Their contribution to national defense became apparent during the war. After the war that realization seems to have been forgotten in favor of military Keynesianism, at least until Sputnik scared the nation into making new investments in schools and research. But by then national defense in the military sense was front and center, to such a great extent that Eisenhower felt he needed to warn against it. Grand public works could no longer be justified as benefiting the welfare of the nation, they had to be justified as necessary for national security.

Your counter isn't really a counter, it's a question. Two questions actually, and both missing question marks. Here's a question for you. Once the government gets a hold of it, can it still be called capital? Here's an answer to your non-question questions. Had the US government not taxed that capital, those who held it might well have invested it in the booming economy of Nazi Germany, following after Ford, IBM and Prescott Bush (How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power -- It's not about Nazi sympathies, just about greed).

Banks are definitely fouled up these days. The trickle is steady. Don't want to panic the herd, er, scare the public.

Economy shrinks less, jobless claims fall (Aug 27, 2009)

Quote:
...
Gross domestic product fell at a 1.0 percent annual rate, unchanged from an estimate last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. Economists had expected a steeper 1.5 percent drop after a 6.4 percent collapse in the first quarter.

A separate report from the Labor Department showed the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits fell by 10,000 to 570,000 last week, suggesting firms were not firing staff as aggressively as they did early in the year.
...
Business inventories dropped a record $159.2 billion in the second quarter, more than the $141.1 billion estimated last month. Stripping out inventories, GDP rose 0.4 percent -- the first gain since the second quarter of 2008.
...
Consumer spending fell at a 1.0 percent rate in the second quarter. A month ago the department estimated it had dropped 1.2 percent.
...
Wage and salary disbursements fell $235.7 billion in the first quarter, $31.1 billion more than previously thought.
...
The number of workers still on the jobless benefits rolls after claiming an initial week of aid fell to 6.13 million in the week ended August 15 from 6.25 million in the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level of so-called continued claims since the week ending April 4.
...
The GDP report showed after-tax corporate profits rose 2.9 percent in the second quarter, reflecting aggressive cost cutting by businesses, after gaining 1.3 percent in the first three months of the year.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Bear in mind that the hypothesis is formed in hindsight. National defense was not the purpose behind those public works projects at the time they were built, at least, not in the military sense. Their contribution to national defense became apparent during the war. After the war that realization seems to have been forgotten in favor of military Keynesianism, at least until Sputnik scared the nation into making new investments in schools and research. But by then national defense in the military sense was front and center, to such a great extent that Eisenhower felt he needed to warn against it. Grand public works could no longer be justified as benefiting the welfare of the nation, they had to be justified as necessary for national security.

I agree. I wonder why you don't see a strategy of "domestic spending as national defense" by the Dems. It owuldn;t be that tough to couch spending in those terms and most of the red staters eat that stuff for breakfast.

Quote:
Your counter isn't really a counter, it's a question. Two questions actually, and both missing question marks. Here's a question for you. Once the government gets a hold of it, can it still be called capital?

Well, in the strictest definition of the word it's still capital, it's just stolen capital.

Quote:
Here's an answer to your non-question questions. Had the US government not taxed that capital, those who held it might well have invested it in the booming economy of Nazi Germany, following after Ford, IBM and Prescott Bush (How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power -- It's not about Nazi sympathies, just about greed).

Well, that's speculation obviously, as is required by the subject matter. [smile]

Taken further, how might heavy investment in the Nazi economy have affected the war, as well as the need for it? What about our ability to affect a non-martial outcome? All of these questions are of course speculative as well.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Banks are definitely fouled up these days. The trickle is steady. Don't want to panic the herd, er, scare the public.

Economy shrinks less, jobless claims fall (Aug 27, 2009)

Quote:
...
Gross domestic product fell at a 1.0 percent annual rate, unchanged from an estimate last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. Economists had expected a steeper 1.5 percent drop after a 6.4 percent collapse in the first quarter.

A separate report from the Labor Department showed the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits fell by 10,000 to 570,000 last week, suggesting firms were not firing staff as aggressively as they did early in the year.
...
Business inventories dropped a record $159.2 billion in the second quarter, more than the $141.1 billion estimated last month. Stripping out inventories, GDP rose 0.4 percent -- the first gain since the second quarter of 2008.
...
Consumer spending fell at a 1.0 percent rate in the second quarter. A month ago the department estimated it had dropped 1.2 percent.
...
Wage and salary disbursements fell $235.7 billion in the first quarter, $31.1 billion more than previously thought.
...
The number of workers still on the jobless benefits rolls after claiming an initial week of aid fell to 6.13 million in the week ended August 15 from 6.25 million in the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level of so-called continued claims since the week ending April 4.
...
The GDP report showed after-tax corporate profits rose 2.9 percent in the second quarter, reflecting aggressive cost cutting by businesses, after gaining 1.3 percent in the first three months of the year.

Using the pre-Clinton era methodology of unemployment figures last month topped 20%. From what I gather on the ground a lot of the inventory problems are beginning to resolve which is a great sign, but all of the cash created and given to the banks are setting in vaults like the sword of Damocles. I'm really afraid that everything sold right now is going at a premium and once the inventories are exhausted you're going to see some mass devaluation of assets when the new money starts hitting the public.