1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

How about undoing Trump's tax cuts. They're not exactly popular. But raising taxes on the rich is very popular.

Using 2022 IRS data (the latest), a 100% tax on everyone making over 1,000,000 per year will balance the budget. Im sure that will last for only one year. People won't work for free.

5 hours ago, TedG said:

You are going to raise taxes on the rich by 2.2 trillion dollars?

In other words, if undoing past tax cuts isn't the entire solution, then it can't be part of the solution? Given that you didn't mention them at all, that does seem to be the position you're taking.

4 hours ago, TedG said:

Using 2022 IRS data (the latest), a 100% tax on everyone making over 1,000,000 per year will balance the budget. Im sure that will last for only one year. People won't work for free.

Why do you believe that deficits need to be cut to zero?

13 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

In other words, if undoing past tax cuts isn't the entire solution, then it can't be part of the solution? Given that you didn't mention them at all, that does seem to be the position you're taking.

What is your solution? Please lay it out.

12 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Why do you believe that deficits need to be cut to zero?

The debt is huge, and it costs about one trillion per year to service.

Just now, TedG said:

What is your solution? Please lay it out.

Answering a question with a question?.You got nothing.

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

The debt is huge, and it costs about one trillion per year to service.

That doesn't explain why you apparently believe it needs to be cut to zero.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Answering a question with a question?.You got nothing.

I have plenty to offer; you know you are outmatched on these topics.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

That doesn't explain why you apparently believe it needs to be cut to zero.

1 trillion is 1,000,000,000,000. or 1000 billion. That's a lot of money.

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

I have plenty to offer; you know you are outmatched on these topics.

And yet you refuse to say whether you support reversal of tax cuts. And it's just plain sad when someone both appoints themselves to be the referee and engages in a mind reading act. You've got less than nothing.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

And yet you refuse to say whether you support reversal of tax cuts. And it's just plain sad when someone both appoints themselves to be the referee and engages in a mind reading act. You've got less than nothing.

I don't support reversing tax cuts, since Congess is not serious about addressing the structural issues in the federal budget. I have plenty, and will dog-walk you on these budget topics, and you know it.

1 minute ago, TedG said:

I don't support reversing tax cuts, since Congess is not serious about addressing the structural issues in the federal budget. I have plenty, and will dog-walk you on these budget topics, and you know it.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Since this is all hypothetical why wouldn't you propose tax cuts along with whatever structural changes you support? So now you're blaming Congress for your refusal to offer tax cuts as part of the solution?

And once again you offer a mind reading act. Sad.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Your argument makes no sense at all. Since this is all hypothetical why wouldn't you propose tax cuts along with whatever structural changes you support. So now you're blaming Congress for your refusal to offer tax cuts as part of the solution?

And once again you offer a mind reading act. Sad.

I'm not a member of congess, nor involved in legislation. In your narrow-minded world, the only issue with the federal budget is the tax cuts. The problem with the federal budget is spending at 23% of the GDP, which is unsustainable. If you bother to read a CBO report, you know that the largest driver of the deficit is the social programs. Entitlement programs are growing faster than the economy.

• Social Security costs are projected to grow from about 5.2% of GDP in 2025 to around 6.3% by 2076 under current law.

• Medicare costs are projected to rise from about 3.9% of GDP in 2025 to about 6.0% by 2045 and remain elevated thereafter.

• Combined, Social Security and Medicare costs are projected to increase from roughly 9.1% of GDP in 2023 to about 11.5% of GDP by 2035, and remain high over the long term.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Look at this number.

• CBO projects that spending on health programs, Social Security, and net interest costs will grow from about 14.2% of GDP in 2025 to nearly 19.6% of GDP by 2055.

1 minute ago, TedG said:

I'm not a member of congess, nor involved in legislation. In your narrow-minded world, the only issue with the federal budget is the tax cuts. The problem with the federal budget is spending at 23% of the GDP, which is unsustainable. If you bother to read a CBO report, you know that the largest driver of the deficit is the social programs. Entitlement programs are growing faster than the economy.

• Social Security costs are projected to grow from about 5.2% of GDP in 2025 to around 6.3% by 2076 under current law.

• Medicare costs are projected to rise from about 3.9% of GDP in 2025 to about 6.0% by 2045 and remain elevated thereafter.

• Combined, Social Security and Medicare costs are projected to increase from roughly 9.1% of GDP in 2023 to about 11.5% of GDP by 2035, and remain high over the long term.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Look at this number.

• CBO projects that spending on health programs, Social Security, and net interest costs will grow from about 14.2% of GDP in 2025 to nearly 19.6% of GDP by 2055.

And what does any of this got to do with the fact that you refuse to endorse tax increases as part of the solution? Deflecting much?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

And what does any of this got to do with the fact that you refuse to endorse tax increases as part of the solution? Deflecting much?

Read my post again.

Just now, TedG said:

Read my post again.

As I noted before, If Congress's inability to address the situation keeps you from proposing tax increases as part of the solution, why doesn't it keep you from proposing spending cuts as part of the solution? Are you laboring under the belief that you are the president, and the position you're taking here is just a negotiating tactic?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As I noted before, If Congress's inability to address the situation keeps you from proposing tax increases as part of the solution, why doesn't it keep you from proposing spending cuts as part of the solution? Are you laboring under the belief that you are the president, and the position you're taking here is just a negotiating tactic?

Why should I support tax increases if congess will keep on increasing spending?

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

Why should I support tax increases if congess will keep on increasing spending?

Because what we're offering here are hypothetical solutions. By your logic I could just as well say why should I support spending cuts if Congress won't pass tax increases?

Another nail in the USA's coffin.

13 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Yes, you're full of "questions", as is usual when a subject comes up that you don't like.......

That's not all he's full of

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually China does depress domestic consumption. Here are the two here are two of the way that it does it. For one thing it keeps Bank interest rates very low for depositors. So this allows Banks to make low interest loans to industry .

Chinese interest rates are low due to low domestic growth and almost non-existent inflation. Raising interest rates would further depress domestic demand and increase savings.

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Second, and here's something right wingers should applaud, it provides a very threadbare social safety net. Which means Chinese citizens have to save much more intensively because they know there won't be adequate government support for their retirement. Or for that matter, medical care, should they need it. So that undermines a consumer propensity to spend.

I largely agree but any suppression of domestic demand for consumer goods because of a need for Chinese citizens to prioritise health spending/ retirement savings would be a by-product. I doubt that it was a policy decision by the Chinese government to reduce domestic demand for consumer goods in this way.

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The government's economic mismanagement that led to the housing boom and it's subsequent indifference to the financial phase of those who bought said housing is another way that it has undermined consumers' ability to spend.

Agreed.

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It was an excellent column by a Chinese economist in the New York Times but about the Chinese government and she in particular, has sacrificed the economic welfare of its citizens, in order to pursue an aggressive and militarized foreign policy. But I'm on a cell phone now and don't want to deal with cutting and pasting.

Would be an interesting piece to read.

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And one other huge factor I forgot to mention is that China does not allow the yuan to float freely. It keeps the rate artificially low in order to subsidize exports.

That's a fair criticism although I would point out that this is not proof that China is suppressing domestic demand.

Interesting article on the problems faced by China in managing the yuan going forward.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/chinas-currency-now-facing-substantial-appreciation-pressure

10 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Well you can buy an f250 in America hell of a lot cheaper than you can buy it in Japan

Which proves what?

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

Chinese interest rates are low due to low domestic growth and almost non-existent inflation. Raising interest rates would further depress domestic demand and increase savings.

I largely agree but any suppression of domestic demand for consumer goods because of a need for Chinese citizens to prioritise health spending/ retirement savings would be a by-product. I doubt that it was a policy decision by the Chinese government to reduce domestic demand for consumer goods in this way.

Agreed.

Would be an interesting piece to read.

"Chinese interest rates are low due to low domestic growth and almost non-existent inflation. Raising interest rates would further depress domestic demand and increase savings."

While that may currently be the case, even before the real estate collapse, China was practicing what is called "financial repression"

From Gemini AI:

"Yes, China’s pre-2021 economic model is often cited as a textbook example of financial repression.

This wasn't just a side effect of policy; it was a deliberate strategy used for decades to fuel China’s rapid industrialization and infrastructure boom. By controlling interest rates and the flow of capital, the state essentially extracted wealth from household savers to provide cheap credit to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments."

"I largely agree but any suppression of domestic demand for consumer goods because of a need for Chinese citizens to prioritise health spending/ retirement savings would be a by-product. I doubt that it was a policy decision by the Chinese government to reduce domestic demand for consumer goods in this way."

Whether it was their intent or not, that was the result. And when it comes to these policies, the "Chinese government is effectively Xi. Xi has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a defective understanding of the economy and finance.

As for the how controlling the Yuan hurts Chinese consumers, once again I'm going to cede the floor to Dr. Gemini.

How does China's control of the exchange rate for the yuan hurt chinese citizens

China’s control of the yuan (renminbi) exchange rate is a central pillar of its economic strategy, but it acts as a massive "hidden tax" on its own citizens. While a managed exchange rate helps keep Chinese exports cheap for the rest of the world, it comes at a direct cost to the wealth and living standards of Chinese households.

Here is how that control hurts the average citizen:

1. Drastic Loss of Global Purchasing Power

By deliberately keeping the yuan undervalued (or preventing it from appreciating as much as market forces would dictate), the government makes every Chinese citizen "poorer" in global terms.

Expensive Imports: A weaker yuan makes everything from iPhones and German cars to Brazilian soybeans and Australian iron ore more expensive for Chinese consumers.

Travel and Education: For the millions of Chinese families sending children to universities in the US, UK, or Australia, or for those traveling abroad, the exchange rate control acts as a direct surcharge on their costs.

2. The "Forced Saving" Subsidy

To keep the yuan from rising, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) must constantly buy up foreign currency (mostly USD) that flows into the country from exports. To pay for these dollars, the PBOC prints more yuan.

The Inflation Risk: Printing all that yuan could cause massive inflation. To prevent this, the government uses "sterilization"—they force domestic banks to hold more reserves and keep interest rates on deposits artificially low.

Wealth Transfer: This effectively transfers wealth from households (who earn almost 0% on their savings) to state-owned exporters (who benefit from the cheap currency) and the government (which gets cheap loans from the banks).

3. Entrapment in Domestic Asset Bubbles

Because of Capital Controls (the "walls" that keep the exchange rate stable), Chinese citizens are largely forbidden from investing their money outside of China.

Lack of Choice: If you cannot easily buy US stocks or Japanese real estate, you are forced to invest in the few options available in China: the volatile domestic stock market or real estate.

The Crash Connection: This "captive capital" is exactly what pumped up the massive real estate bubble. Citizens weren't buying multiple apartments because they loved property; they were buying them because the government’s exchange and capital controls left them with no other way to protect their savings from inflation.

4. The "Renminbi Trap" in 2026

As of early 2026, this policy has created a new kind of pain. With the Chinese economy facing deflationary pressure, a weaker yuan should help exports, but the government is hesitant to let it drop too far because it might trigger "capital flight"—where everyone tries to move their money out at once to avoid losing more value.

Citizens are stuck: They are watching the value of their homes drop while their bank deposits pay almost nothing, and they are legally restricted from moving their money into stronger global currencies that might preserve their wealth.

On the other hand the EU has again shot itself in the foot with the Mercosur deal. The EU is hostage to its farmers' lobby.

Let's see if the deal with India undergoes the same fate.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/01/21/european-parliament-freezes-mercosur-deal-referring-it-to-eu-court-of-justice

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

"Chinese interest rates are low due to low domestic growth and almost non-existent inflation. Raising interest rates would further depress domestic demand and increase savings."

While that may currently be the case, even before the real estate collapse, China was practicing what is called "financial repression"

From Gemini AI:

"Yes, China’s pre-2021 economic model is often cited as a textbook example of financial repression.

This wasn't just a side effect of policy; it was a deliberate strategy used for decades to fuel China’s rapid industrialization and infrastructure boom. By controlling interest rates and the flow of capital, the state essentially extracted wealth from household savers to provide cheap credit to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments."

"I largely agree but any suppression of domestic demand for consumer goods because of a need for Chinese citizens to prioritise health spending/ retirement savings would be a by-product. I doubt that it was a policy decision by the Chinese government to reduce domestic demand for consumer goods in this way."

Whether it was their intent or not, that was the result. And when it comes to these policies, the "Chinese government is effectively Xi. Xi has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a defective understanding of the economy and finance.

As for the how controlling the Yuan hurts Chinese consumers, once again I'm going to cede the floor to Dr. Gemini.

How does China's control of the exchange rate for the yuan hurt chinese citizens

China’s control of the yuan (renminbi) exchange rate is a central pillar of its economic strategy, but it acts as a massive "hidden tax" on its own citizens. While a managed exchange rate helps keep Chinese exports cheap for the rest of the world, it comes at a direct cost to the wealth and living standards of Chinese households.

Here is how that control hurts the average citizen:

1. Drastic Loss of Global Purchasing Power

By deliberately keeping the yuan undervalued (or preventing it from appreciating as much as market forces would dictate), the government makes every Chinese citizen "poorer" in global terms.

Expensive Imports: A weaker yuan makes everything from iPhones and German cars to Brazilian soybeans and Australian iron ore more expensive for Chinese consumers.

Travel and Education: For the millions of Chinese families sending children to universities in the US, UK, or Australia, or for those traveling abroad, the exchange rate control acts as a direct surcharge on their costs.

2. The "Forced Saving" Subsidy

To keep the yuan from rising, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) must constantly buy up foreign currency (mostly USD) that flows into the country from exports. To pay for these dollars, the PBOC prints more yuan.

The Inflation Risk: Printing all that yuan could cause massive inflation. To prevent this, the government uses "sterilization"—they force domestic banks to hold more reserves and keep interest rates on deposits artificially low.

Wealth Transfer: This effectively transfers wealth from households (who earn almost 0% on their savings) to state-owned exporters (who benefit from the cheap currency) and the government (which gets cheap loans from the banks).

3. Entrapment in Domestic Asset Bubbles

Because of Capital Controls (the "walls" that keep the exchange rate stable), Chinese citizens are largely forbidden from investing their money outside of China.

Lack of Choice: If you cannot easily buy US stocks or Japanese real estate, you are forced to invest in the few options available in China: the volatile domestic stock market or real estate.

The Crash Connection: This "captive capital" is exactly what pumped up the massive real estate bubble. Citizens weren't buying multiple apartments because they loved property; they were buying them because the government’s exchange and capital controls left them with no other way to protect their savings from inflation.

4. The "Renminbi Trap" in 2026

As of early 2026, this policy has created a new kind of pain. With the Chinese economy facing deflationary pressure, a weaker yuan should help exports, but the government is hesitant to let it drop too far because it might trigger "capital flight"—where everyone tries to move their money out at once to avoid losing more value.

Citizens are stuck: They are watching the value of their homes drop while their bank deposits pay almost nothing, and they are legally restricted from moving their money into stronger global currencies that might preserve their wealth.

I want anyone looking at the conversation RayC and I are having to note that so far I have not accused RayC of being a marxist or a socialist or a minion of George Soros. Nor has Ray accused me of being a supporter of Donald Trump or an acolyte of Elon Musk or a minion of George Soros. It hasn't been easy for me to resist the urge, but I will continue to battle against it. Trump in 2028!!!...oops!

19 hours ago, BLMFem said:

So while Trump FAFOs and TACOs on tariffs and trade, the EU looks elsewhere. This is an absolutely massive deal, a deal it's taken 20 years to reach. But thanks to Trump's clown show a deal has now been reached.

Well done, Donald!

I'm guessing Europe will be filling up with Indians ..............

15 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I want anyone looking at the conversation RayC and I are having to note that so far I have not accused RayC of being a marxist or a socialist or a minion of George Soros. Nor has Ray accused me of being a supporter of Donald Trump or an acolyte of Elon Musk or a minion of George Soros. It hasn't been easy for me to resist the urge, but I will continue to battle against it. Trump in 2028!!!...oops!

I am a Marxist and freely admit it.

Unfortunately none of the governments appear willing to redistribute land to poor white folk.

Marx was a German Jew who considered women and non-white folk to be property!

If you hate Jews and love Muslims ....... you ain't a Marxist!

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I am a Marxist and freely admit it.

Unfortunately none of the governments appear willing to redistribute land to poor white folk.

Marx was a German Jew who considered women and non-white folk to be property!

If you hate Jews and love Muslims ....... you ain't a Marxist!

God knows what you're talking about when it comes to land distribution.

Marx also wrote this:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

I guess Marx wasn't a Marxist either.

Or maybe you are referring to Groucho Marx? After all, your comment is laughable.

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Or maybe you are referring to Groucho Marx? After all, your comment is laughable.

He thinks that being a cheap charlie racist and sexist is the same as being Marxist.