The stock market is setting records, unemployment is relatively low, inflation is low, and America’s economy is churning along. Lots of reasons to be happy if you’re rich. But we’ve got a $20 trillion Sword of Damocles hanging over our collective heads.
America’s GDP is somewhere north of $18.5 trillion, and increased over the 2nd quarter of 2017 at an annual rate of 3.0 percent (over the 1.2 percent of the first quarter), while the PCE price index went up by only 0.3 percent.
Though it’s encouraging to see the economy growing at a reasonable rate, it’s very troubling to see the federal government’s debt exceeding the nation’s GDP. In business, nobody ever wants to owe more than they produce, unless those debts are tied to solid and appreciating assets.
Of course, the value of the United States’ real estate far exceeds the national debt, right? Well, actually, no. The value of all land (in 2009 dollars) was estimated at $23 trillion by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in a 2015 report.
Essentially, the federal government has mortgaged all the land in the country, including Washington D.C. and every bit of property the federal government owns (about $1.8 trillion according to the report).
Your home may have a mortgage, but the government has also mortgaged your land, and every dollar produced by every company in America is mortgaged and attached by the federal debt.
In business, we call this situation “insolvency.” Companies that believe they can grow their way out of insolvency have to sit in front a room full of creditors and bankers and explain how this works. Frequently, the bankers don’t buy it.
But the U.S. government is too big to fail, and therefore China, Saudi Arabia and other debt holders aren’t about to call Congress on the carpet to explain how we get out of insolvency. That’s the job of the electorate–we’re the ones being mortgaged and co-signed on the debt our government has piled up.
It is unconscionable and immoral for our federal government to continue to lead us into insolvency. If you look at history, when powerful nations embark down a road of insolvency, ultimately it leads to war.
The U.S. has no shortage of natural resources. We are the most productive nation on earth in food, energy, and innovation. Trump and Bannon’s answer to the national debt is to grow our way out of it by making better trade agreements. That means selling America’s resources at a higher price to foreign buyers. If it only worked that way in reality, if only “America, incorporated” could simply raise the price of food, natural gas, oil, and intellectual property, we’d all be drinking wine and smelling roses.
But it doesn’t work that way, does it? Corporations in America have foreign capital investments, and many are owned and headquartered offshore. Much of America’s enormous productive capacity is pledged to foreign owners profit expectations. That’s how a free market works.
The only way to force companies to fall in line with a nationalist economic policy is to…well, force them. In historical political science-y and economic terms, that’s called “fascism,” where the government sets the economic priorities for each market and companies must comply or be nationalized.
A nationalized economy does not suit America, where liberty and opportunity are valued above cultural homogeneity. Where the left would impose that hegemony over American social values, our federal government and the economic nationalists led by Steve Bannon would impose it on our corporate values. Neither solution can work in the U.S.
In the end, either foreign capitalists will continue to draw profits out of America, in an unending spiral of unpayable mortgages until someone calls a debt (provoking war); or we will impose unacceptable barriers to free trade, which will cause consumer prices to skyrocket, in a cycle of punitive tariffs and restrictive trade agreements. This will eventually lead some nation that the U.S. forces an ultimatum of forgiving defaulted debt or resource starvation to begin a war.
It might be an economic war at first, but such things usually lead to a shooting war. This is how Japan ended up in World War II. It’s how North Korea might react if all other options are removed. It’s how China will react as they continue to build their power and military.
By mortgaging America, our federal government is placing our nation at odds with practically every country in the world. Even Canada and Mexico, faced with renegotiating NAFTA, will side against an America with $30 trillion in federal debt and $25 trillion in GDP.
Our federal debt more than doubled since 2007. In another 10 years, it’s entirely possible we will see this scenario in our faces, especially if Trump remains in office 2024.
The federal government must, for the sake of our nation and our liberty, stop this disastrous debt spending. Insolvency is no way to run a business, or a government.
Fed survey cites rising concerns about trade tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the U.S. economy was growing in the fall, but there were concerns about higher tariffs from a widening trade war, rising interest rates and tight labor markets.
In its latest report on economic conditions around the country, the Fed said that most of its 12 regions saw moderate growth through late November. Dallas and Philadelphia said growth had slowed, while St. Louis and Kansas City depicted growth as slight.
The report, known as the beige book, found that optimism about the future had waned somewhat, with business contacts citing “increased uncertainty.”
The survey will used at the Fed’s next meeting on Dec. 18-19. The central bank is widely expected to boost its benchmark rate for a fourth time this year at that meeting.
The beige book report noted problems the higher tariffs from Trump’s get-tough approach to trade were causing: rising costs for manufacturers, weaker sales at companies and farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other nations.
Even with the tariff concerns, the beige book said most districts continued to report moderate growth in manufacturing.
The impact of rising interest rates affected interest-rate sensitive sectors such as housing, with the beige book noting that new home construction and sales of existing homes were either holding steady or experiencing slight declines.
The Fed survey said that labor markets had tightened further across a broad range of occupations.
“Over half of the districts cited firms for which employment, production and sometimes capacity expansion had been constrained by an inability to attract and retain qualified workers,” the report said.
Unemployment fell in October to a 49-year low of 3.7 percent with economists forecasting further declines in the coming months. A key reason the Fed has been raising interest rates is to slow the economy to ensure that tight labor markets don’t unleash unwanted inflation pressures.
With labor markets already so tight, the Fed said that many districts were seeing examples of firms enhancing their nonwage benefits, including health benefits, profit-sharing, bonuses and paid vacation days.
Despite the wage pressures, the report said that prices continued to increase at a modest pace in most districts although reports of tariff-inducted cost increases have spread more broadly in such areas as manufacturing, retailing and restaurants.
White House intensifies confusion and fear on US-China deal
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration raised doubts Tuesday about the substance of a U.S.-China trade cease-fire, contributing to a broad stock market plunge and intensifying fears of a global economic slowdown.
Investors had initially welcomed the truce that the administration said was reached over the weekend in Argentina between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping — and sent stocks up Monday. But on Tuesday, after a series of confusing and conflicting words from Trump and some senior officials, stocks tumbled, with the Dow Jones shedding about 800 points, or 3.1 percent.
White House aides have struggled to explain the details of what the two countries actually agreed on. And China has not confirmed that it made most of the concessions that the Trump administration has claimed.
“The sense is that there’s less and less agreement between the two sides about what actually took place,” said Willie Delwiche, an investment strategist at Baird. “There was a rally in the expectation that something had happened. The problem is that something turned out to be nothing.”
Other concerns contributed to the stock sell-off, including falling long-term bond yields. Those lower rates suggested that investors expect the U.S. economy to slow, along with global growth, and possibly fall into recession in the coming year or two.
John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, also unnerved investors by telling reporters Tuesday that he supports further Fed rate hikes. His remarks renewed fears that the Fed may miscalculate and raise rates so high or so fast as to depress growth.
The disarray surrounding the China deal coincides with a global economy that faces other challenges: Britain is struggling to negotiate its exit from the European Union. Italy’s government is seeking to spend and borrow more, which could elevate interest rates and stifle growth.
And in the United States, home sales have fallen sharply in the past year as mortgage rates have jumped.
Trump and White House aides have promoted the apparent U.S.-China agreement in Buenos Aires as a historic breakthrough that would ease trade tensions and potentially reduce tariffs. They announced that China had agreed to buy many more American products and to negotiate over the administration’s assertions that Beijing steals American technology. But by Tuesday morning, Trump was renewing his tariff threats in a series of tweets.
“President Xi and I want this deal to happen, and it probably will,” Trump tweeted. “But if not remember, I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so.”
Trump added that a 90-day timetable for negotiators to reach a deeper agreement had begun and that his aides would see “whether or not a REAL deal with China is actually possible.”
He revisited the issue later Tuesday with a tweet that said: “We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal – either now or into the future. China does not want Tariffs!”
The president’s words had the effect of making the weekend agreement, already a vague and uncertain one, seem even less likely to produce a long-lasting trade accord.
“We expect the relationship between the world’s two largest economies to remain contentious,” Moody’s Investors Service said in a report. “Narrow agreements and modest concessions in their ongoing trade dispute will not bridge the wide gulf in their respective economic, political and strategic interests.”
Among the conflicting assertions that White House officials made was over whether China had actually agreed to drop its 40 percent tariffs on U.S. autos.
In addition, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday on the Fox Business Network that China agreed to buy $1.2 trillion of U.S. products. But Mnuchin added, “If that’s real” — thereby raising some doubt — it would close the U.S. trade deficit with China, and “We have to have a negotiated agreement and have this on paper.”
Many economists have expressed skepticism that very much could be achieved to bridge the vast disagreements between the two countries in just 90 days.
“The actual amount of concrete progress made at this meeting appears to have been quite limited,” Alec Phillips and other economists at Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note.
During the talks in Buenos Aires, Trump agreed to delay a scheduled escalation in U.S. tariffs on many Chinese goods, from 10 percent to 25 percent, that had been set to take effect Jan. 1. Instead, the two sides are to negotiate over U.S. complaints about China’s trade practices, notably that it has used predatory tactics to try to achieve supremacy in technology. These practices, according to the administration and outside analysts, include stealing intellectual property and forcing companies to turn over technology to gain access to China’s market.
In return for the postponement in the higher U.S. tariffs, the White House said China had agreed to step up its purchases of U.S. farm, energy and industrial goods. Most economists noted that the two countries remain far apart on the sharpest areas of disagreement, which include Beijing’s subsidies for strategic Chinese industries, in addition to forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft.
Chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow acknowledged those challenges in remarks Tuesday morning.
“China’s discussed these things with the U.S. many times down through the years and the results have not been very good,” he said. “So this time around, as I said, I’m hopeful, we’re covering more ground than ever … So we’ll see.”
Complicating the challenge, Trump’s complaints strike at the heart of the Communist Party’s state-led economic model and its plans to elevate China to political and cultural leadership by creating global champions in robotics and other fields.
“It’s impossible for China to cancel its industry policies or major industry and technology development plans,” said economist Cui Fan of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.
Trump had tweeted Sunday that China agreed to “reduce and remove” its 40 percent tariff on cars imported from the U.S. Mnuchin said Monday that there was a “specific agreement” on the auto tariffs.
Yet Kudlow said later that there was no “specific agreement” regarding auto trade, though he added, “We expect those tariffs to go to zero.”
Associated Press writer Joe McDonald in Beijing contributed to this report.
Medicare-for-All would cost more than every penny we’ve spent on defense in the country’s history
Math is hard for many Americans. It isn’t just the sad state of our public school system that keeps the people down. It’s politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who push lies and pipe dreams that keep many Americans thinking the government has unlimited money and there’s no real difference between millions, billions, and trillions.
There’s a big difference, of course, but leftists will never let the number of zeroes get in the way of promoting their ideological goals. As I posted earlier, even left-leaning news outlets like the Washington Post are calling out Ocasio-Cortez for her false statements about Medicare-for-All.
Ocasio-Cortez must have realized when she Tweeted the article that there’s no way “66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” She was certainly playing down to her base in hopes they’d ignore reality and embrace her false notions just because she said it. The Tweet was either a bald-faced lie or she’s an absolute moron. Or both.
Washington Post, which normally supports socialist initiatives recommended by their Democratic puppetmasters, had to call this particular claim out. They gave the claim “4 Pinocchios,” a designation they save for some of the most egregious lies in politics.
It isn’t just about being completely wrong on the Pentagon’s accounting errors. This goes deeper. While fact-checking her claims, PolitiFact decided to do some math of their own. They gathered defense spending data as far back as they could – 1940 – and tallied the totals. Those who understand the difference between millions, billions, and trillions probably won’t be surprised to learn the total spent in that time is under $18 trillion, well short of the $21 trillion Ocasio-Cortez claimed she could have used to pay 2/3 of Medicare-for-All.
The also stipulated that since defense spending was much lower in the past, it’s very likely the total spent since the nation’s inception still couldn’t hit Ocasio-Cortez’ number.
One tip-off is the amount of Ocasio-Cortez’s “accounting errors” is far bigger than the actual Pentagon spending from 1998 to 2015, which was $8.5 trillion. In fact, it’s also far bigger than the amount the government has spent on national security since 1940 and, in all likelihood, in the nation’s history.
Here’s a chart we assembled showing national-security spending by the federal government from 1940 to today. Ocasio-Cortez’s $21 trillion estimate exceeds the entirety of national-security spending since 1940, which checks in around $17.8 trillion. And while full data back to 1776 doesn’t exist, prorating backwards for another 164 years would almost certainly not add enough to make the total $21 trillion.
Medicare-for-All is projected to cost $32 trillion over its first 10 years alone.
Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and all their mathematically challenged supporters need to hear this information now. If you could somehow take back every dollar spent on defense from the time the nation was formed until today, it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for Medicare-for-All. This isn’t a right-wing conspiracy. This is left-leaning Politifact crunching the numbers.
After 57 years, George Carroll’s remains have been found
As car technology advances, every dealership needs a NERD team like Bob Johnson Chevrolet
President Trump defends himself on Fox News
In plea deal, Russian woman admits to being a secret agent
Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?
President Trump defends himself on Fox News
The administrative state is far too powerful
6 years after Rupert Sheldrake’s censored TEDx talk, ‘The Science Delusion’ continues drawing eyeballs
What classical liberalism is, briefly
George Papadapolous opens up to OAN following release from prison
Ben Shapiro calls out the utter hypocrisy of the U.N. for not condemning Hamas
As Israel destroys Hezbollah’s terror tunnels, Benjamin Netanyahu issues a warning
Thomas Sowell on #FakeNews
This quote from Emmanuel Macron didn’t age well
Jonah Goldberg throws water on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal
Guns and Crime20 hours ago
Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?
Guns and Crime23 hours ago
Yes, the President really is in trouble this time
Democrats22 hours ago
Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke
News18 hours ago
Baby of Hanukkah terror victims pronounced dead
News22 hours ago
UK’s May wins no-confidence vote by MPs unhappy over Brexit
Immigration11 hours ago
Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?
News14 hours ago
Is Newt Gingrich the perfect Chief of Staff for President Trump?
Quotes20 hours ago
Ben Shapiro calls out the utter hypocrisy of the U.N. for not condemning Hamas