More Great Economic News
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
- Status
Sure it was - but I meant NEW government data that you cannot possibly have access to yet because so little of it has been released to the public. And there are SO many variables as to make your chart useless. For example you cannot possibly know what the demand for manufactured goods will be, how much of whatever is warehoused, consumer spending, interest rates, employment/unemployment numbers and their affects on tax revenues and a whole host of other things. Just because your estimates are based on historical data, that really says very, very little about the future.
What can I say...you got me. When or if you go to college you will learn many things. But never get a job to estimate anything weeks or months ahead, you may lose your job when you tell your boss, it is impossible!
Back up a little there - my college days were all completed back in the 1980s. And since that time I've had MANY instances where I've drawn up and helped draw up projections for both my own department and for that of the entire 6,000+ employee organization. We did one-year and five-year plans. And both had to be tweaked slightly (or even more) on a regular monthly basis because of increase in supply prices, changes in demand, unexpected repairs and delays, projects that were added later and several other factors.
I don't mean to sound uppity here, but I'm afraid you've forgotten who you're conversing with.
kmguru
Staff member
My apologies. I thought you are still going to high school as most Sciforum members are. It is difficult to tell from your present posts.
Did not sound uppity at all when you did not understand the deficit picture, at least that is how it came across. Hope that 6000+ organization of yours make it with you as the driver of projections. If not, you can always have that excuse.
BTW: How did you do that projection, that you said impossible by mere mortals!
Did not sound uppity at all when you did not understand the deficit picture, at least that is how it came across. Hope that 6000+ organization of yours make it with you as the driver of projections. If not, you can always have that excuse.
BTW: How did you do that projection, that you said impossible by mere mortals!
My apologies. I thought you are still going to high school as most Sciforum members are. It is difficult to tell from your present posts.
Did not sound uppity at all when you did not understand the deficit picture, at least that is how it came across. Hope that 6000+ organization of yours make it with you as the driver of projections. If not, you can always have that excuse.
BTW: How did you do that projection, that you said impossible by mere mortals!
They made it quiet well, thanks. And I retired in 1990 - haven't been back since.
I never said it was impossible - I said it was rather useless to make a five-year projection and expect it to hold up. I also stated quite clearly that we had to make adjustments to the numbers every month. That's the ONLY way to make it come close to reality and make it somewhat useful for long-range planning.
The one-year projection didn't need as much adjustment, of course, but it STILL needed a little tweaking now and then to keep it on track. For example, a hefty change in electricity or water rates throws EVERYTHING off, as well as a supplier that cannot keep up with demand and you have to switch to another with a different pricing schedule. And how do you pre-plan for a work-stoppage?? Talk about throwing everything out and starting almost from scratch!!! And inclement weather (snow, ice) when people can't make it to work? You actually DO include a fudge-factor for that - we allowed six days per year. But never hit right on the real number.
The problem with your approach was that you didn't even attempt to account for such things - there can be a multitude of good AND bad things that will happen to make your estimates off by a full 10-30% either direction and actually, that's pretty useless information to try and plan from.
Just hold on those numbers you generated and look at the actuals in five years - and then figure out where you went off the beam. (Because you surely will.)
You finished college in 1980, you retired in 1990 and still remember your projections and could not understand the mean rate of change or curve fit - that is really amazing but your statement does not have any actionable value. No wonder you retired....so why in sciforums?
I've no idea what prompted you to say that - of course I understand all those things and even more - since I was working with live, changing data.
I was working long before college and in the military prior to that. I actually worked at two major jobs and have a comfortable retirement package from both. (The first only required skill and the second required college for a management position, though that's not why I went to school - I just wanted to. I had a little puny BS degree from way back in 1968 and wanted to go farther.)
I'm here because it's a nice diversion at times and I have time to spare now. I did continue working (totally unrelated employment) following my early-out in 1990 but left it ALL behind six years ago.
I'm also a Mod and Admin on another forum and drop by here when things get slow over there. They are a very well-behaved group and don't require much attention anyway. There are several professional folks there and we set the age limit to discourage all the younger know-nothing crowd. They are permitted to ask questions, of course, and we all try to help them learn. But there's NONE of the garbage you see all over this place (Star Wars vs. whoever, nit-picking trolling, complaints about Mods, whining, crying, etc.). A very pleasant atmosphere for adults. No flaming or profanity either. No stupid sex discussions and the rest of the stuff that small children talk about here.
Hold on - once again you are allowing yourself to be FAR to presumptuous, and that's in poor character for anyone. To think that I don't care is close to a personal insult. I have grown children and grandkids also - I VERY much care about the situation in this country because it affects them and other people I care about. The simple fact that I've worked hard to provide well for myself and my wife for a number of years to come has nothing to do with it.
I've never once said or even indicated that I "don't care." But what I DID say is that the numbers you've produced for the future are pretty much useless since there are so many factors that they cannot account for.
And it's my personal belief that the future isn't nearly as dismal as you paint it. The American people, business owners and government are a very resilient bunch and they WILL make adjustments when it becomes necessary. The country has been deep in debt before, made changes and survived it. I feel sure it will do so again. The changes may well be slow in coming but the pendulum swings both ways - it's only a matter of time and effort.
So how are you going to get out of that mess?
Well, let's see... you have $10 trillion dollars in national debt and $10 trillion dollars in consumer debt....
If people can't pay their consumer debt, then all the banks and financial institutions who are the creditors will go bankrupt when nobody pays. People have accounts in those financial institutions. So they will lose all their money that was in the bank which went bankrupt. People are afraid of that happening, so they are more likely to take their whole money out of their accounts (or large sums). Sounds like a vicious cycle AND a domino effect. When the banks go bankrupt and people have no money, how will people survive?
Then there is the national debt. Who will pay for the national debt? The government has no money unless the citizens "give" money to the government (specially through taxes). In order to pay the debt, the govenrment will have to either raise taxes or cut expenditures. If they raise taxes, people who are barely able to pay off their creditors won't be able to also pay taxes. So that doesn't work. If you cut expenditures.... well how does the government spend money? Healthcare? You don't have much public health care there, do you? Education? Well, your public education is not that great either! Well, that live you with cutting infrastructure, such as power plants. Ooops. No more electricity for you.
Oh, did I tell you you also have trade deficits? Good thing you already paied those off, with more debt.
So in order to calculate how much each person will have to pay, this is what you do (assuming that the national debt per capita stays at an average of $30,000):
money needed per household per year= ($30,000 * number of people in household) + consumer debt at the household + necessaries of the household
So let's say you have a family of 2 with personal debt at $10,000 (that's below average, of course) and they require $30,000 a year to survive. So the money they will need to produce in a year to pay their portion of the debt is:
($30,000*2)+$10,000+$30,000= $100,000
So those people who used to make $30,000 a year would have to make $100,000 in the same year to pay all debts. Now, of course, you can spread the cost over a number of years. In that case you do this:
[($30,000*2)+$10,000]/ number of years = debt payable per year
debt payable per year + $30,000 = total per year
So if you elect to pay the debt in 2 years, you will spread out the cost in the following manner:
$70,000/2 = $35,000
$35,000+$30,000= $65,000 required
So if this family would pay the debt within 2 years, they would have to more then double their income. It's ok for 2 years. This family would likely be able to pay off the debt within 10 years. However, this family is in a good position. Remember that the average consumer debt is $30,000 per capita. A lot of people will have more debt And if those people are given the same $30,000 national debt to pay off, then it would be hardly possible for them to ever pay off their debts.
It seems that the only way you could pay off the debt is by getting it from foreing investors. But as your market plummet, such investors will have to be more and more speculative.
So... what will you do? :shrug:
Well, let's see... you have $10 trillion dollars in national debt and $10 trillion dollars in consumer debt....
If people can't pay their consumer debt, then all the banks and financial institutions who are the creditors will go bankrupt when nobody pays. People have accounts in those financial institutions. So they will lose all their money that was in the bank which went bankrupt. People are afraid of that happening, so they are more likely to take their whole money out of their accounts (or large sums). Sounds like a vicious cycle AND a domino effect. When the banks go bankrupt and people have no money, how will people survive?
Then there is the national debt. Who will pay for the national debt? The government has no money unless the citizens "give" money to the government (specially through taxes). In order to pay the debt, the govenrment will have to either raise taxes or cut expenditures. If they raise taxes, people who are barely able to pay off their creditors won't be able to also pay taxes. So that doesn't work. If you cut expenditures.... well how does the government spend money? Healthcare? You don't have much public health care there, do you? Education? Well, your public education is not that great either! Well, that live you with cutting infrastructure, such as power plants. Ooops. No more electricity for you.
Oh, did I tell you you also have trade deficits? Good thing you already paied those off, with more debt.
So in order to calculate how much each person will have to pay, this is what you do (assuming that the national debt per capita stays at an average of $30,000):
money needed per household per year= ($30,000 * number of people in household) + consumer debt at the household + necessaries of the household
So let's say you have a family of 2 with personal debt at $10,000 (that's below average, of course) and they require $30,000 a year to survive. So the money they will need to produce in a year to pay their portion of the debt is:
($30,000*2)+$10,000+$30,000= $100,000
So those people who used to make $30,000 a year would have to make $100,000 in the same year to pay all debts. Now, of course, you can spread the cost over a number of years. In that case you do this:
[($30,000*2)+$10,000]/ number of years = debt payable per year
debt payable per year + $30,000 = total per year
So if you elect to pay the debt in 2 years, you will spread out the cost in the following manner:
$70,000/2 = $35,000
$35,000+$30,000= $65,000 required
So if this family would pay the debt within 2 years, they would have to more then double their income. It's ok for 2 years. This family would likely be able to pay off the debt within 10 years. However, this family is in a good position. Remember that the average consumer debt is $30,000 per capita. A lot of people will have more debt And if those people are given the same $30,000 national debt to pay off, then it would be hardly possible for them to ever pay off their debts.
It seems that the only way you could pay off the debt is by getting it from foreing investors. But as your market plummet, such investors will have to be more and more speculative.
So... what will you do? :shrug:
Oh and, btw, did I tell you baby boomers are starting to retire? Sounds like a receipt for disaster...
I would invest in the US if I had a lot of money. Sorry... I don't have much to invest there... :shrug:
Most of your numbers and calculations are WAY off - so they are meaningless. Current figures actually show that the average household owes slightly lower than $19,000 - FAR below the $30,000 that you claim.
And there's no relationship at all between consumer debt and National Debt - that's just more faulty thinking on your part. Consumer debt occurs when people buy things they cannot immediately pay for - National Debt accrues due to programs the government is running. There's no connection.
Wishful thinking. Credit card debt alone was at $753 billion in 2005[[sup]1[/sup]]. Today, the total consumer debt is around $10 trillion. Do the math. $10 trillion divided by the number of households 300 million people is equal to $33,333 per capita. And increasing thanks to subprime mortgages, continuing credit accumulation and schemes like this: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/01/expresscon.shtm .
That's correct. I never stated that. However, all households are responsible for both debts.
No, that's you not seeing the big picture.
Oh reeeeeally?
Yup. So?
Yes there is. Both are paied by the whole country. You owe that national debt just like everyone else in the country. How do you think the government get any money? They COULD get from trading with other countries, but you have an ever increasing trade deficit, so....
You lack understanding on this issue. You pay the national debt through taxes.
Now you're just being a jerk. Some of what you said is very obvious - some sheer nonsense. And the link you provided said NOTHING to back up the numbers you're claiming!:bugeye:
kmguru
Staff member
It has everything to do with. You see, as the U.S. goes deep in to financial crisis, they will print money to cover their arse. Then dollar will devalue. Then the OPEC with stop buying dollars, China will divest from dollars - then dollar will devalue. That would be good news for export. But wait a cotton picking minute ...we do not have much to sell because we are buying goods from China, Japan, Germany and UK, service from India and Ireland. Jobs are moving by the thousands everymonth overseas. Our next door neighbor who works at JP Morgan Chase is going to Bombay to train people so that they can shut down local Chase back office of 3400.
So, chances are your children or grandchildren will be asking for money if they lose their outsoucred job.
It is not pretty much useless because it is tracking since 2003 +/- 50 units
You yourself said that past is no indication that future will happen same way. That means present debts +war+export of jobs+export of technology+foreign competition may not get the country out this time.
And if past is any indication, the Greeks, Romans and Argentina never recovered.
Feelings need to be backed up by the steps you, your congress representatives and your government is doing to change the direction of the coming economic storm. Your bottom line is "Feelings". That would not do. You post a lot, this time show us the actionable items.
Read-Only said:
You are just deluding yourself. Seriously. I clearly proved that you have at least $753 billion in consumer debt (we both know it is more then that since 2005 and with the current mortgage situation). We also both know that the national debt is nearly $10 trillion. If you doubt, just look up "national debt clock" on google!
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to discuss this? Because all that you are doing is putting my work down without giving any evidence contrary to what I'm stating. Where's your evidence!? :bugeye:
- Status