The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Billy T]

... In pretty much every way. The same way that giving money to a bank to spend in return for a promise that they'll extract profits from future borrowers to pay it back is, for example. How is that dissimilar to "savings?"

No that is not what the bank does. The bank lends the money at higher rates than they pay current depositors on things like home mortgages that secured by the loan.
Even if there were no future depositors, they could pay you back more than you gave them.

What you describe the bank as doing is a simple Ponssi scheme: Pay Paul with funds taken from Peter.

In short, the difference is that money given to the bank is productively invested and money given to social Security is spent with little, if any, future returns. Really all SS gets is promises that future tax payers will tax them self more for no personal benefits. Before they do that, if history is any guide, the will vote the congerssmen wanting to tax them more with no benefit to themselves out of office.

 

[quadraphonics]

No that is not what the bank does. The bank lends the money at higher rates than they pay current depositors on things like home mortgages that secure the loan. Even if there were no future depositors, they could pay you back more than you gave them.

I didn't say anything about "future depositors." So I'm unsure if you simply misread my post entirely, or are simply making a minor semantic quibble about the particulars of the timeline.

Either way, I'm unimpressed.

In short, the difference is that money given to the bank is productively invested

Except when it isn't, of course. Our whole banking system just about collapsed because they made so many bad loans in recent years, and had to be bailed out by the government. You might have heard of these events.

and money given to social Security is spent with little, if any, future returns.

And yet, the society and economy fostered by - one might even say, "invested in" - said government spending ends up being much more productive and wealthy than it was when the Boomers were paying their Social Security taxes, and so there is ample room to repay the debts. Funny how that worked out.

Really all SS gets is promises that future tax payers will tax them self more for no personal benefits.

No, it's an investment in the combined prospects of future economic growth and, if necessary, taxation or cuts in other spending.

Meanwhile, your same argument applies to anyone who buys T-bills. Is it your contention that China has not, actually, saved up any dollar reserves? That everyone who holds government bonds, anywhere in the world, is "not saving?"

Or is this just some blatantly inconsistent line of "reasoning" cooked up for a specious attack on Social Security - a transfer program whose basic solvency is more-or-less fine in the long run?

Why do you only subject this semantic attack on "savings" to the question of Social Security - and why are you so unable to distinguish between the underlying transfer payment welfare system, and the Social Security Trust Fund built up to cover the Boomers?

Do you really not understand that the vast majority of Social Security payments don't get spent on government bonds, but are simply paid directly to beneficiaries?

Before they do that, if history is any guide, the will vote the congerssmen wanting to tax them more with no benefit to themselves out of office.

Or they might cut other spending, or they might just borrow the difference from others and then inflate that debt away. Or some combination of the three.

Really, as someone who has been receiving Social Security benefits for, what? Years now? You ought to have a more informed, realistic understanding of how the program and its politics work in the real world.

 

[Billy T]

I didn't say anything about "future depositors."

True, you said future borrowers, but the money they borrow comes from future depositors does it not - so you have only a technical symantic point ...

And yet, the society and economy fostered by - one might even say, "invested in" - said government spending ends up being much more productive and wealthy than it was when the Boomers were paying their Social Security taxes, and so there is ample room to repay the debts. Funny how that worked out.

Seems like no one has told you that, unlike when they were paying into SS, the country now has 16 trillion dollar debt, now growing annually at about 1.5 trillion that it can´t pay (as that is essentially $50,000 debt on every man, woman and child in the US) and that does not even include the several times greater present value other promises /obligations like Social Security.

From the footnote of another post, here is part of the "investment" being funded by current Social Security taxes:

* "... The F-22 Raptor, which has never flown in combat, has been called “the most expensive, corroding hangar queen ever” by Arizona Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..." "... The United States Air Force temporarily halted operations for its $77.4 billion fleet of F-22 Raptors this week after several of the plane’s pilots reported bizarre symptoms linked with oxygen deprivation. ..."

3.1 billion per {"stealth"} ship!!!! And any of the >5000 Chinese fishing ships in the S. China Sea can see it and report where it is.

"... A new stealth destroyer being built for the U.S. Navy is slated to cost the service branch $3.1 billion a ship. The new DDG-1000 destroyer, which is expected to be delivered by 2014, contains state-of-the-art technology that makes it virtually undetectable :roflmao: as it sneaks up on coastlines and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns." ..." Obvious pro spending BS from: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/348450/20120604/stealth-destroyer-cost-ship-ddg-navy-warship.htm

"... Right now the ship is costing taxpayers around $3.1 billion but the price of research and development is likely to bring the tally to more than double. The ship is several years in the making and the first of its kind is expected to be ready by 2014, but critics in China — the very place Uncle Sam plans to send his up and coming fleet — are laughing at America’s latest endeavor. "It would be a goner," Rear Adm. Zhang Zhaozhong of China's National Defense University tells the nation’s CCTV military channel. ..." From: http://rt.com/usa/news/china-billion-navy-ship-972/

BTW I forgot to mention in that "other post" that China has at least twice as many subs as the US has (and about 10 times more in the South China Sea) any one of which can pick up the DDG-1000´s prop noise many kilometer away. IMHO, the DDG-1000 moves to the top of a long list of stupid expenditures made by the US military.

Ike was right:
The greatest danger to the US is its "military / industrial complex" as it really knows how to waste money, which is in short supply now.

 

[quadraphonics]

True, you said future borrowers, but the money they borrow comes from future depositors does it not - so you have only a technical symantic point ...

Dude, it's real simple. You put money in a bank. After that (in the "future"), the bank loans it to a borrower. The borrower then repays that loan with interest. The bank can then cover your deposit, and give you some interest, and keep the rest for itself.

Analogously, a Baby Boomer pays some money into the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund then loans that money to a borrower (in this case, the Federal Government). The borrower then repays that loan with interest. The Trust Fund can then cover the Baby Boomer's deposit, including some interest (the cost of living increase), and keep the rest for itself.

Thus, the Social Security Trust Fund is a savings instrument, just like a bank deposit. In both cases, there is some risk.

Meanwhile, I don't see what about this simple observation you actually disagree with. You seem to be simply blustering here. Apparently your personal vendetta against me has caused you to become angry and unhinged.

Seems like no one has told you that, unlike when they were paying into SS, the country now has 16 trillion dollar debt, now growing annually at about 1.5 trillion that it can´t pay (as that is essentially $50,000 debt on every man, woman and child in the US) and that does not even include the several times greater present value other promises /obligations like Social Security.

I'm well aware of what the national debt looks like. But you've given no argument relating that issue to the question of repaying the Social Security Trust Fund. You seem to be simply casting around for negative things to say about the US government's fiscal situation, without bothering to relate them to the immediate topic, or the thread topic in any concrete way.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of stuff you've already posted elsewhere, and which you do not bother to connect to either the immediate subject (Social Security Trust Fund and the Boomer's retirement) nor the thread topic in general. Again, you appear to be unhinged and flailing about.

 

[Billy T]

Dude, it's real simple. You put money in a bank. After that (in the "future" {if you call in less than a year the future}), the bank loans it to a borrower. The borrower then repays that loan with interest. The bank can then cover your deposit, and give you some interest, and keep the rest for itself.

Analogously, a Baby Boomer pays some money into the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund then loans that money to a borrower (in this case, the Federal Government). The borrower then repays that loan with interest. The Trust Fund can then cover the Baby Boomer's deposit, including some interest (the cost of living increase), and keep the rest for itself. Thus, the Social Security Trust Fund is a savings instrument, just like a bank deposit. In both cases, there is some risk.

Meanwhile, I don't see what about this simple observation you actually disagree with. ...

Your analogy is false as your bank deposits are > 90% invested in things that do pay interest and producing income to the bank with which to meet its promises to its depositors. Less than 10% (I would guess) of what the government spends it funds on is put into investments that earn interest and grow. Hell, not even the toll roads give income to the federal government, much less military costs, welfare payments, FBI salaries, postal deficits, etc.

What is it that the government will earn on (like a bank does) to allow the government to payoff the huge SS claims 20 to 30 years hence?

Also there are very different time scales. Typically the collection of SS benefits is several decades after the first social security taxes were taken from what you call the investor doing the "saving." Thus, it is very relevant to consider whether or not the Government will be able to pay him back several decades later. Clearly with growing inability to even pay its current current expenses without going 1.5 trillion more into debt each year (at a time when interest rates on the debt have never been so low)* the government will not in three or so decades be able to pay its Social Security obligations.

If the SS obligations were in fixed dollars it could pay them off with tiny fraction of the purchasing power the person was forced to pay initially, but the SS payments are adjusted for inflation so the government will not be able to pay them off, even with near worthless printing press dollars.

Thus a more correct analogy is: Your give the bank dollars now and they pay you interest on your deposits later in Monopoly Money.

*If interest rates were near their long term average, instead of depressed by the FED, the annual deficits would be much higher and even faster growing.

 

[quadraphonics]

Your analogy is false as your bank deposits are > 90% invested in things that do pay interest and producing income to the bank with which to meet its promises to its depositors. Less than 10% (I would guess) of what the government spends it funds on is put into investments that earn interest and grow.

You don't seem to be able to follow the analogy. The entity that is analogous to the bank here is the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund invests in interest-bearing financial instruments, and uses the resulting income to meet its promises to the Social Security contributors. The Federal Government is the borrower that the bank is lending the deposits to, in this analogy.

Why are you twisting yourself into such pretzels to avoid accurately describing such a simple matter?

Also there are very different time scales.

Not really - we're talking about retirement savings in each case.

Typically the collection of SS benefits is several decades after the first social security taxes were taken from what you call the investor doing the "saving." Thus, it is very relevant to consider whether or not the Government will be able to pay him back several decades later.

And because the savings vehicle in question - the Social Security Trust Fund - is now in its pay-out phase, that is not a hypothetical question about the distant future. We're talking about how the Social Security Trust Fund is going to use the savings it has built up and invested for decades now to help pay for the Baby Boomers' retirements over the next couple of decades.

Meanwhile, you provide no actual substantive argument about the government's ability to repay its borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund. You simply cite the current level of debt, and then conclude that they cannot. But the high rate of debt accumulation actually argues the opposite: the fact that the federal government is able to borrow such huge quantities at such low rates indicates a very high level of market confidence in its ability to repay.

Moreover, you do not even consider the question of raising taxes or redirecting other spending towards Social Security Trust Fund repayments. You are not presenting any kind of coherent, serious argument. You are just trumpetting debt figures to frighten the reader, and then leaping directly from that to a sweeping, prejudicial conclusion. This is childish and silly.

Clearly with growing inability to even pay its current it current expenses without going 1.5 trillion more into debt each year (at a time when interest rates on the debt have never been so low) the government will not in three or so decades be able to pay its Social Security obligations.

If you'd read the wikipedia page on the Social Security Trust Fund I provided earlier, you'd know that said obligations are due to be exhausted in 20 years from now. 30 years from now, Social Security will be back to a straightforward transfer payment system.

And, again, the fact that the government is able to borrow amounts that are similar in size to the total outstanding debts owed to the Social Security Trust Fund - year after year, at rock-bottom rates - indicates exactly that they will have little trouble financing the repayment of such.

If the SS obligations were in fixed dollars it could pay them off with tiny fraction of the purchasing power the person was forced to pay initially, but the SS payments are adjusted for inflation so the government will not be able to pay them off, even with near worthless printing press dollars.

You have provided no argument to speak of that supports that conclusion. You don't even seem to grasp the basic elements of the finances involved.

Thus a more correct analogy is: Your give the bank dollars now and they pay you interest on your deposits later in Monopoly Money.

? You have just asserted that the fact of SS benefits being indexed for inflation means exactly that such a situation cannot occur. You don't seem to have any coherent point here, but to just be throwing out any and every negative statement that pops into your head.

 

[Billy T]

You don't seem to be able to follow the analogy. The entity that is analogous to the bank here is the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund invests in interest-bearing financial instruments, and uses the resulting income to meet its promises to the Social Security contributors. The Federal Government is the borrower that the bank is lending the deposits to, in this analogy. ...

I know there is an intermediary between SS and the government. Hell even if there were five (Trust fund 1, trust fund 2,... trust fund 5) each being a lender to the next (getting promissory notes for the loan) and borrower from the previous (giving it promissory notes), that does not change the fundamental fact that it is the government´s ability to pay off 20 or 30 years into the future the claims presented to the Social Security that is important.

There is no reason to think the government will be able to so when it can not even pay its current expenses without going deeper into debt (borrowing from China and other investors, most of which only lend to the US as currently it is the least ugly whore in the international financial whore house*), but these lenders are buying real (not paper) assets as fast as they can as they think long term these real assets like oil, gold, farm land, etc. will have more value than the dollars they are paying for them now. I.e. Most governments are actively REDUCING the fraction of their reserves held in dollars so they run less risk of holding a bag of near worthless green paper later.

*When this glamor queen moves into the house they will have a much more attractive alternative:

Why do you think China, world´s largest producer of gold, is also world´s largest buyer?

 

[quadraphonics]

I know there is an intermediary between SS and the government. Hell even if there were five (Trust fund 1, trust fund 2,... trust fund 5) each being a lender to the next (getting promissory notes for the loan) and borrower from the previous (giving it promissory notes), that does not change the fundamental fact that it is the government´s ability to pay off 20 or 30 years into the future the claims presented to the Social Security that is important.

Actually, the fundamental issue in both cases is the ability of the underlying economy itself to produce the returns in question - the government depends on that to raise tax revenue, and the banks depend on that to get their loans repaid.

There is no reason to think the government will be able to so when it can not even pay its current expenses without going deeper into debt

Only if you assume that the government will run out of credit and so default. (Or be unwilling to trim other of its expenses in favor of Social Security. Or be unwilling to raise taxes to cover this stuff.) Otherwise, it can simply borrow its way out - and the fact of investors lending trillions of dollars to the government at rock-bottom rates (the total obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund are about $3 Trillion) argues that such is not a huge problem at this point.

If your position is simply that the government is going to exhaust its credit and run into a default situation, then that has little to do with the Social Security Trust Fund in particular, and it would be more honest and productive of you to simply argue that directly, rather than - apparently - invoking the Social Security Trust Fund as a podium for unsubstantiated assertions about the government's ability to borrow.

I.e. Most governments are actively REDUCING the fraction of their reserves held in dollars so they run less risk of holding a bag of near worthless green paper later.

And yet they are still accumulating more and more dollars.

Moreover, you are ignoring other major sources of credit - the private market.

The rest of your post is - yet again - a verbatim regurgitation of material you've already posted elsewhere, and which is a distraction from this subject and the larger thread topic. You should stop doing that.

 

[Billy T]

... Moreover, you are ignoring other major sources of credit - the private market.

But the crisis in Europe and lack of a more attractive alternative is why investors buy US paper. That will change (opinion of many, including the head of the world bank in 2009) and I told one probably way how (well illustrated in photo of my last post) here:

"... With China's growth trend and Beijing's efforts to internationalize its currency, the Chinese yuan can develop into the alternative to the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency in 15 years, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said Wednesday. ... China, which is world's largest producer of gold, could instantly make its currency internationally convertable and widely accepted. I.e. Just link the Yuan to gold. Probably initially China should prohibit ownership of gold, other than as jewlery, within China as the domestic demand could be large.

Relatively few would actually turn in their Yuan they have earned via trade, etc. for gold because gold pays no interest and their Yuan could be used to buy Chinese bonds which do pay interest.

China started to sell Yuan demonated bonds internationally on the Hong Kong market about half a year ago. Perhaps China can put the world back on a gold standard, with ~ 5,000 yuan to an oz of gold. - That would reflect the correct value of (the slightly stronger) Yuan.

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...l-Superpower&p=2410918&viewfull=1#post2410918 made back in 2009.

 

[quadraphonics]

But the crisis in Europe and lack of a more attractive alternative is why investors buy US paper.

So you agree that there is strong demand for US debt.

That will change (opinion of many, including the head of the world bank in 2009) and I told one probably way how (well illustrated in photo of my last post) here:

The changes you are talking about there are very long-term in nature. That is outside the 20-year window relevant to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Moreover, China's demographic trends dictate that it is going to have a much, much worse problem with supporting its retirees, which will come on much more quickly, so it's difficult to see how they're going to make such an attractive alternative.

 

[Billy T]

Actually, the fundamental issue in both cases is the ability of the underlying economy itself to produce the returns in question - the government depends on that to raise tax revenue, and the banks depend on that to get their loans repaid. ...

Well at least we agree on this. So let’s look at how competitive the US´s "underlying economy" is and what the trends have been, say over the last 2 or 3 decades. I.e. let´s start when there was no field in which others were better than the US.

First important area US lost was producing high tech goods. For example flat display screens. We made the first generation, but soon Japan and others were too, at lower cost and higher yields. So we dropped out and use the printed money to buy them. Japan is now on the fifth generation and we can not even produce the first any more.

Then, and probably the root of US falling further behind, was the US average student was no longer the world´s US best in math and sciences, but still had at the top the world´s best, most creative, designers of the technology others would make.

Heavy industrial production is capital intensive - things like steel, cars, big generator etc. so we keep it while all the textile factories in N. Carolina, etc. closed. Then a few years later we were no longer the world leader in capital intensive production (in part because US capital fled to where the larger markets and cheaper labor was) with Boeing only the equal of air bus.

But we still had some of the best and brightest in the developing field of IT, (Bill Gates, etc.) so we dominated the software industry, but now India and others are taking that over too yet US is still an important player, even if with an ever decreasing role.

Same story in another important field, development of drugs but there too the US now has only a declining role.

Even in finances, where US was once unchallenged, London is now more important than the US, mainly because almost all of the oil money flows there first.

Well at least US has the fertile mid west - they can´t take that away from us! But now already Brazil, Argentina and Australia are the main suppliers to China of food stocks and animal feed but US will keep a role.

US has a lot of coal, but it is soft coal, not anthracite, which is needed for iron ore refining etc. so Indonesia and a few others are supplying most of what is in high demand and have much more hard coal than US does by huge factors with cheaper labor and shorter shipping distance to the main markets, plus much more thermal coal too.

Well at least US leads the world in “frackng technology” and has the cheapest natural gas with 100 or so years supply, but China has more and is buying firms with the technology. Shell is building the world´s largest floating structure, much bigger than the largest aircraft carrier and even the huge “capsize” tankers and dry bulk carriers look small beside it. It, and a couple more yet to be constructed, will exploit the rich ocean fields of NG off NW Australia and fill simultaneously several large NG delivery ships! I.e. before US can convert the cove point NG terminal from it design as an import station for NG to an export one, few if any will want to buy US´s more expensive NG to ship longer distances to the Asian demand centers.

So I ask you, how will the "underlying economy" of US even provide jobs for those who want to work, much less pay the SS claims of the retired via greater taxes in 20 or so years when there are no longer even any government promises to pay in the Social Security Trust Fund and US debt of at least 20 trillion (and quite probably more than 40 trillion dollars) with no way to pay it?

 

[quadraphonics]

You mischaracterize the situation in pretty every one of those fields. Which is not surprising, given that you are making nothing other than unsubstantiated assertions. The result is simply a series of affirmations of your fixed worldview.

If you want to present a serious analysis of the US economy and its competitiveness, you should be relying on serious data and analysis. This stuff is available, so there's no reason for anyone to settle for your presentation of cheery-picked anecdotes and misrepresentations, especially when they're so obviously a recitation of your stilted worldview.

Moreover, your "analysis" there doesn't even address the ostensible question. The issue was not "will the USA totally dominate every field of the economy for ever." It was a question of what growth was going to look like, and whether that would be suitable for funding various welfare systems. Instead, you dropped that question immediately (it's a matter of trends in population, workforce, productivity, taxation, life expectancy and medical costs - none of which you said anything about - and not particularly of where the USA ranks in the global system - which is the only thing you talked about) and instead presented an affirmation of your belief in (relative) American decline. This again demonstrates your inability to stay on any particular topic, and your insistence on driving all conversations back to your pet fixation with American decline.

 

[Billy T]

Quad your post 372 is just your standard attack on me, without addressing (Or even trying to refute) one of the many facts in my post 326 so I ask: what if anything I posted was false - not fact.

here with reference is some of the fall out of letting US education for the masses fall below global standards of advanced nations - our competitors:
"...Even with almost 13 million Americans looking for work and 8 million more settling for part-time jobs, almost half the 1,361 U.S. employers surveyed in January by ManpowerGroup say they can’t find workers to fill positions. At the same time, American employers are less likely than their counterparts overseas to invest in training, the Milwaukee-based staffing company reported last month.

Companies have reported more than 3 million job openings every month since February 2011, according to the Department of Labor. ..."
From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-unfilled-positions-in-skill-crisis-jobs.html

 

[quadraphonics]

Quad your post 372 is just your standard attack on me,

If you're just going to regurgitate your standard talking points and canards, then all you can expect is standard responses.

And you can also expect any reference by you to me as "Quad" or any other pet name to result in your post being reported. I informed you that I find such disrespectful in this very thread, and yet you persist in doing so. You are to address me using my username ("quadraphonics") or not at all.

without addressing (Or even trying to refute) one of the many facts in my post 326 so I ask:

That's a lie. I observed that you mischaracterized the situation in most of those areas, that you are relying on cherry-picked anecdotes and not serious analysis, and that the point you drove at there does not really address the question at hand (solvency of Social Security) in the first place. That addresses everything you said there to my satisfaction.

You've just got your panties in a wad because I refuse to play your troll game wherein your toss out strings of unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations, with tenuous connection to the immediate topic, and then expect me to expend a bunch of time and energy responding to that as if it's serious analysis. I'm not a sucker: if you're just going to spend 30 seconds spouting the same stilted talking points, I'm just going to point out as much and move on. To bite on your game would be a huge waste of my time, and serve only to legitimize your propaganda output as serious analysis (which it is not).

what if anything I posted was false - not fact.

Again, I've addressed your post as I see fit, and hectoring me along this line is not going to get you anywhere.

our competitors:

It seems that what you want to present is a competitive analysis of the USA in the global economy. But, you have not established the relevance of that topic to the subject you are ostensibly addressing: the solvency of Social Security.

As I already said in my last post:

([the solvency of Social Security is] a matter of trends in population, workforce, productivity, taxation, life expectancy and medical costs - none of which you said anything about - and not particularly of where the USA ranks in the global system - which is the only thing you talked about)

If you'd like to present some serious argument, with supporting evidence, that trends in competitiveness are going to make the difference in the solvency of Social Security, then by all means do so. If you could establish that such is the case, then an analysis of American competitiveness would become relevant. Until then, this is just your standard tactic of constantly changing the subject and shotgunning scary anecdotes out - something I've had to repeatedly call you on in this interaction, and pretty much every other one. Why do you have such a problem staying on topic?

 

[Billy T]

If you're just going to regurgitate your standard talking points and canards, then all you can expect is standard responses.

And you can also expect any reference by you to me as "Quad" or any other pet name to result in your post being reported. I informed you that I find such disrespectful in this very thread, ...

I am sorry to have offended you. I did not see your request at end of that post to use you full ID as often when I think first part of a post is in error and second seems to be built on it, I stop reading and reply to first. Compared to your having called me more than a dozen different names, my contraction of your long ID seems to be a very trivial offense.

Many contract long IDs. For example MadAnthonyWayne is usually not full written by most posters, me included, without any offense intended or taken. So as you have several times told me: grow up.

while I´m here, I note:

... you mischaracterized the situation in most of those areas, that you are relying on cherry-picked anecdotes and not serious analysis, and that the point you drove at there does not really address the question at hand (solvency of Social Security) in the first place. That addresses everything you said there to my satisfaction. ...

Yes you do seem to be satisfied by attacks on me instead the information I posted.

My showing the current continuation of 2+ decades of the decline in US economic competitiveness is very much on the BOTH the thread´s subject (see its title) AND on the issue of Social Security (subject of many recent posts) as it is only paper promises that the government will pay in future that are deposited in the SS trust fund; so if government is broke, unable to borrow, with many unemployed as US has lost, in almost every field, it competitive position in the world economy so government cannot collect the even greater taxes than now needed to pay off those SS trust fund notes, etc. then, those paper promises are just that - i.e. worthless except as toilet paper.

As you do not seem to understand that my point about US decline is on subject and correct, perhaps a simple example will help you. My first "decline point example" listed in post 371 was illustrated by loss of the high-tech flat panel display construction ability but even more simple technology manufacturing ability has been lost by the US:
For example the US no longer can even make TVs* - Zenith was the last US maker to do so:

"Zenith Electronics Corporation is a brand of the South Korean company LG Electronics. The company was previously an American manufacturer of radio and television receivers and other consumer electronics, and was headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. For many years, their famous slogan was "The quality goes in, before the name goes on." ..." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_Electronics

*TV is really not hard to do technology. - As a teenager, into amateur radio stuff, I made my own oscilloscope (only a 2 inch ID tube) but its very similar techology.

My third "loss of US competitiveness" point in post 371 mentioned textiles: Blue jeans were invented in the US and for about 100 years, US inventor and maker, Levi company, sold them to them to the world, but more than a decade ago, as I recall, Levi closed the last US plant making Blue jeans. For me that was a sad day as it drove home the point that US competitiveness was being lost. What jobs would still exist in the US when I died, I wondered. You will know it is all over, when that other American icon, Coke Cola, closes the last US plant that makes its syrup and only imports that. (God I hope that has not already happened - does anyone know?)

 

[quadraphonics]

I did not see your request at end of that post to use you full ID as often when I think first part of a post is in error and second seems to be built on it, I stop reading and reply to first.

In what way did my request that you cease using a demeaning pet name when addressing me "seem to be built on top of" anything?

And, yes, I have noticed that you tend to respond by cherry-picking one element of a post, latching on to that, and then attempting to bury the actual topic and point under a specious digression. Now you have come out and confirmed that you don't even bother reading past the first issue that you find to sieze onto. Which is to say that you do not give posts a fair reading before rushing to respond - you just look for whatever opening to keep running your fixed agenda.

Compared to your having called me more than a dozen different names, my contraction of your long ID seems to be a very trivial offense.

I have done nothing more than accurately describe your problematic behaviors. That you don't like having your tactics and failings accurately described is just that - it does not elevate such into "name calling."

Meanwhile, there is a very explicit, specific rule in the forum posting guidelines indicating that you should refer to everyone by their chosen username - as I do to you - which you, as a moderator, are charged with upholding.

Many contract long IDs. For example MadAnthonyWayne is usually not full written by most posters, me included, without any offense intended or taken.

That is why I made a point of explicitly informing you that your usage of such is unacceptable, and warning you to desist before I would report such. You were given a fair and timely notice of the situation, before any reaction occurred.

So as you have several times told me: grow up.

For the record: my demand that you cease using any pet names for me stands, and I do not appreciate your attempt to browbeat me over it. Please just follow the rules that you are charged with upholding, address me according to my chosen username, and do not attempt to belittle me over my demand for basic courtesy and respect.

Yes you do seem to be satisfied by attacks on me instead the information I posted.

LOL right, apparently any sentence that is addressed to you, and uses the word "you" is now a personal attack that lacks any substance. Of course, by that standard, you have issued a lot of personal attacks yourself, so...

My showing the current continuation of 2+ decades of the decline in US economic competitiveness

Except you aren't presenting an actual analysis of US economic competitiveness. You are simply cherry-picking a few specific areas in which manufacturing has moved to Asia, without even touching the obvious issue of comparative advantage, let alone the larger, systemic issues that actually determine competitiveness. You present no actual metric to measure overall competitiveness by - just a few cherry-picked anecdotes selected to scare the reader.

It seems that you premise your posts on some kind of mercantilist theory that trade and economics are zero-sum games, and so that any advance by any other country is necessarily a setback for the USA - and any relative decline by the USA is thereby an absolute decline. But that theory is simply wrong, and has been discredited. The fact that the USA sheds old industries as it develops new ones is just that: a sign of increased competitiveness. Your implication that it is somehow a setback for the US economy to not continue to produce the same products of yesteryear - even ones that nobody wants any more - looks more like an expression of your fear of change than it does a problem for American competitiveness.

is very much on the BOTH the thread´s subject (see its title) AND on the issue of Social Security (subject of many recent posts) as it is only paper promises that the government will pay in future that are deposited in the SS trust fund; so if government is broke, unable to borrow, with many unemployed as US has lost, in almost every field, it competitive position in the world economy so government cannot collect the even greater taxes than now needed to pay off those SS trust fund notes, etc. then, those paper promises are just that - i.e. worthless except as toilet paper.

You still fail to cope with the fact that it has never been easier for the US government to borrow (you like to remind us that long-term rates are negative in real terms - people will pay for the privilege of loaning the US government money!) and that unemployment is declining.

Moreover, you have not presented any real analysis of American competitiveness, but just a handful of supposedly-scary quotes about trends in TV manufacturing and the like. You ignore the systemic features that would actually be required by a serious analysis of competitiveness - such facts as that American exports are roughly equal to Chinese exports, and that American manufactured output exceeds that of China, and that production is increasingly shifting into the USA as China becomes more expensive and risky, etc. Instead, you play the dishonest game of siezing onto a normal, expected feature (the migration of old manufacturing sectors into developing countries) and play it up as the whole story. That is misleading and dishonorable: propaganda.

Moreover, you do not present any serious analysis of how competitiveness figures into borrowing power, tax revenue or Social Security costs. YO ujust leap from "America doesn't manufacture TVs" to "America is broke."

Finally, you continue to conflate the Social Security Trust Fund with the whole of Social Security. It is not. It is a temporary thing, totalling a few trillion in promissory notes to be repaid over two decades, which exists only to cover the extra costs of the Boomer retirement. The bulk of Social Security always has been, and will continue to be, a straightforward transfer payment system which does not require government borrowing. It just requires payrolls to tax, which money is then paid out to retirees.

My first "decline point example" listed in post 371 was illustrated by loss of the high-tech flat panel display construction ability but even more simple technology manufacturing ability has been lost by the US:
For example the US no longer can even make TVs* - Zenith was the last US maker to do so:

You are confusing "don't" with "can't" there. The USA has more than enough manufacturing and technology capabilities to produce such things. It's just that there is no point - the margin on them is razor-thin, and so ultra low-cost, government subsidized plants in Asia are better off making them. Why make things that you can't turn a profit on without a government subsidy?

*TV is really not hard to do technology. - As a teenager, into amateur radio stuff, I made my own oscilloscope (only a 2 inch ID tube) but its very similar techology.

You are missing the point that nobody produces CRT TVs any more because nobody buys CRT TVs any more. This is like complaining that the US horse-and-buggy industry has declined.

My third "loss of US competitiveness" point in post 371 mentioned textiles: Blue jeans were invented in the US and for about 100 years, US inventor and maker, Levi company, sold them to them to the world, but more than a decade ago, as I recall, Levi closed the last US plant making Blue jeans. For me that was a sad day as it drove home the point that US competitiveness was being lost.

And that illustrates again that your understanding of competitiveness is completely backwards. The fact that the USA has moved up the value chain, and so is no longer in the business of things like low-cost textiles, is a sign of increased competitiveness. Instead, we make thing like advanced industrial designs, jetliners, turbines, software, etc. An America were everyone was employed doing things like making blue-jeans is one that definitely could not afford our Social Security obligations.

All of which I've informed you of before, countless times, but you seem wedded to your wrong-headed notions. Frankly, what you appear to be lamenting looks less like "manufacturing competitiveness" and more like "the specific socioeconomic order BillyT grew up with."

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/01/th...acturing-sector-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/

You will know it is all over, when that other American icon, Coke Cola, closes the last US plant that makes its syrup and only imports that. (God I hope that has not already happened - does anyone know?)

It's unlikely that the Coca-Cola syrup plants will go anywhere else, since they rely on the corn syrup inputs which are cheapest here in the USA, and because the intellectual property in the chemistry and production of that is a key trade secret, and because we have great chemists and advanced chemical manufacturing capabilities here.

That said, I can't really see why it would be particularly dire from the perspective of economic competitiveness for the USA to move out of the soda pop industry. Your example there seems to be selected for emotional impact (this ICON of AMERICA could DECLINE) and less for actual economic salience. Which, again, cherry-picking individual companies or sectors does not add up to a serious analysis of competitiveness - you need to look at overall trends for that - and seems useful only for propaganda value.

 

[Billy T]

... I have done nothing more than accurately describe your problematic behaviors. ... - it does not elevate such into "name calling." ...

LOL - Amazing your ability to do remotely medical diagnostic as when you called me "senile." or a "a petulant child" etc.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm going to go ahead and regard that response as indicating that you are conceding the substance of my post.

 

[Billy T]

I'm going to go ahead and regard that response as indicating that you are conceding the substance of my post.

No. Take it as there is little in your post worth my time to reply to, especially as your relies to my specific list of broad areas, in post 371, where US has lost its former world leading position (and jobs) has only received vague general complaints that I did not do "correct analysis" - etc.

I did not do any analysis - I only listed areas* (whole fields of economic activity) where US no long has jobs it once dominated. (And it not as if the lost jobs have been replaced by better paying jobs, higher up in the value added chain - most replacement jobs, for those who can even find one, are "big Mac" jobs at lower pay.)

In the current issue of Newsweek (at least in the light weight edition sold in Brazil) there is a several pages long article on what Newsweek calls the "Screwed Generation" (ages 18 to 36), where unemployment is 12% and their "American Dream" is to find an apartment they can afford (with a friend) cheap enough so they can move out of their parent´s basement, now that they finally found a "big Mac" job! Don´t try to tell them that the US is in great shape!

"The Screwed Generation" is even the top front page headline of that issue of Newsweek!

* Bold added later to show how quadrphonics distorts, cheery picks, in post 380 by quoting only part of sentence as if there should be some analysis when making a list.

 

[quadraphonics]

I did not do any analysis

My point, exactly.

And it not as if the lost jobs have been replaced by better paying jobs, higher up in the value added chain - most replacement jobs, for those who can even find one, are "big Mac" jobs at lower pay

You have provided nothing whatsoever that would substantiate that assertion.

The fact of the matter is that median real household income has increased by about 25% over the time period you invoke (1960's to today).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.jpg