2012 US Economy - Everything you need to know in 34 charts

[iNow]

A high debt level is bad because it leads to more financial speculation and consumption of resources, with the first leading to a credit crunch

And yet we're able to borrow right now at historically low costs, despite our existing debt levels. Your conclusion is at odds with the facts before us.

 

and the second to predicaments like peak oil.

The amount of oil supply available to humanity is independent of our debt levels. I don't see this as a valid argument in favor of your claim, and it's made less concerning when we realize there are energy sources available besides oil (as we already discussed in this very thread last year when you brought it up the first time).

 

Likewise, it wasn't "recovery" that led to increases in oil prices, but demand.

 

You've yet to demonstrate how a high debt level is in any way dangerous or bad as you continue to assert. Can you support your position? Suggesting we're at peak oil (which is itself questionable) doesn't support your contention that high debt is bad. You also suggested it would be more costly to borrow if debt levels are high, yet we can still currently borrow at historically low rates and there is no shortage of creditors willing to lend to us.

Edited December 16, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

It's the other way round, as energy is the main driver of a real economy.

Energy has been an important factor - one of the two or three mos important - in the industrial revolution. But it is not the only major factor, and it does not dominate everything else - if that were true, productivity increases would have nothing to do with prosperity, and Japan would be one of the poorest countries on the planet.

 

 

 

A high debt level is bad because it leads to more financial speculation and consumption of resources

You appear to be confusing debt level with easy credit again;

 

and with absence of competent financial industry regulation.

[ralfy]

And yet we're able to borrow right now at historically low costs, despite our existing debt levels. Your conclusion is at odds with the facts before us.

It's obvious that we're borrowing at low costs because that's part of bailouts and quantitative easing, i.e., decreasing interest rates. But that also increases debt levels significantly, burying the country in more debt and leading to fewer cents for every dollar borrowed. Only the incredibly naive can imagine that to continue, especially given oil supply issues.

 

The amount of oil supply available to humanity is independent of our debt levels. I don't see this as a valid argument in favor of your claim, and it's made less concerning when we realize there are energy sources available besides oil (as we already discussed in this very thread last year when you brought it up the first time).

The first point is exactly what I mean. In order to back the value of increasing credit created, more goods need to be produced and sold. But because oil supply is not barely catching up with demand, then we see higher prices. Want to create more dollars to deal with that?

 

Likewise, it wasn't "recovery" that led to increases in oil prices, but demand.

Demand went up because more dollars were created. The creation of more dollars was the "solution" that led to "recovery." But because oil production has barely caught up with demand, we now see a tripling of oil prices. Given high oil prices, we should be seeing oil production ramping up considerably so that producers can take advantage of the former, right? Why didn't that happen? Because of peak oil. No matter how many dollars you create, you cannot ultimately set aside the physical limitations of oil production. That's why the world is now relying on unconventional oil.

 

That's why when you look at the data, you will see oil demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan, increasing oil consumption in the rest of the world (where more of the money that was created is being used), conventional oil production in an undulating plateau and dropping for the six major players, and more expensive unconventional oil used to meet increasing demand (which are exactly what happens when you have peak oil). More details are available in the peak oil thread.

 

You've yet to demonstrate how a high debt level is in any way dangerous or bad as you continue to assert. Can you support your position? Suggesting we're at peak oil (which is itself questionable) doesn't support your contention that high debt is bad. You also suggested it would be more costly to borrow if debt levels are high, yet we can still currently borrow at historically low rates and there is no shortage of creditors willing to lend to us.

I demonstrated the first point multiple times in previous messages, complete with links. High debt levels, especially for a consumer spending economy like that of the U.S., and coupled with high oil prices due to peak oil, does not make the situation any safer. That's why much of the good news you are seeing is based on fudged numbers, e.g., month-by-month unemployment rather than broad unemployment, equating part-time with full-time employment, no economic recovery but simply Keynesian economics involving lowered interest rates leading to more investments in an already overpriced stock market, etc. That's why thanks to such conditions and the bailouts, the rich have not only recovered what they lost they even profited. And the rest of the country? See one of the links I gave for details.

 

As for your last point, the need for credit won't be a problem. Remember, we're dealing with money, which essentially has no value and can be created readily. In fact, much of it worldwide consists of numbers in hard drives, and the largest level of credit globally has a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars.

 

The problem is the real economy, i.e., the one that involves energy and material resources. That can't be increased readily in the same way as money, and definitely not given the amount of credit we now have.

Energy has been an important factor - one of the two or three mos important - in the industrial revolution. But it is not the only major factor, and it does not dominate everything else - if that were true, productivity increases would have nothing to do with prosperity, and Japan would be one of the poorest countries on the planet.

The two major factors are energy and resources.

 

Your last point is easy to explain: our definition of prosperity is based on money. We have lots of that and can create it easily.

 

You appear to be confusing debt level with easy credit again;

 

and with absence of competent financial industry regulation.

You can only get the first by having the second, and the second by the third.

[iNow]

It's obvious that we're borrowing at low costs because that's part of bailouts and quantitative easing, i.e., decreasing interest rates. But that also increases debt levels significantly, burying the country in more debt and leading to fewer cents for every dollar borrowed.

You have yet to explain why you believe high debt levels are bad, and continue instead to implicitly ask us to accept without justification that this is so. Why do you believe high debt is a problem for us right now? What will happen exactly if we continue running current debt or even higher debt levels? Please explain.

 

 

In order to back the value of increasing credit created, more goods need to be produced and sold. But because oil supply is not barely catching up with demand, then we see higher prices. Want to create more dollars to deal with that?

Sure, why not? A bit of inflation would be very good for jobs right now and would make exports in US dollars more attractive to purchasers in other currencies. As strange as this might sound, part of our current problem is that inflation is too low right now. Again, why do you see this (increased supply of dollars) as a problem?

 

 

Demand went up because more dollars were created.

Now this is where you're just wrong. Demand went up because investments were made, more jobs were created, and people had money to spend. When people have money to spend, they buy things they need and want. This then creates additional demand as their spending becomes the income of the retailer and the producer, who use that money to buy more things... and it's a self-reinforcing cycle with a multiplier effect.

 

This is not about "more dollars" being created, but instead about investing in programs that create (or save) jobs. Firing teachers and firefighters meant fewer people could buy groceries or pay their bills. By having a stimulus, we could keep those people in their jobs, which means they didn't default on their bills and didn't have to collect unemployment insurance or food stamps. The people to whom they pay their bills also could stay in business, as they were having their debt obligations met.

 

You are here trying to oversimplify things, and it seems to be leading you to make incredibly flawed and false conclusions. Demand did not go down due to the increase in dollars or printed money. Demand went down because the banking system started to collapse, massive layoffs happened, and people lost their incomes so could not spend money... thus causing other people to lose their jobs as demand for their products and services went down... lather, rinse, repeat. The infusion of money into the system was a RESPONSE to the crisis, not a cause of it.

 

 

That's why when you look at the data, you will see oil demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan, increasing oil consumption in the rest of the world (where more of the money that was created is being used), conventional oil production in an undulating plateau and dropping for the six major players, and more expensive unconventional oil used to meet increasing demand (which are exactly what happens when you have peak oil).

Why do you think printing money has led to increased oil demand globally? Much more simple explanations exist, like the growing middle class in China and India where people finally have higher income jobs and can now afford to buy things that require oil. You don't need to invoke increases in the currency supply to explain this incredibly straight forward phenomenon. Also, we're not at peak oil yet, and we have alternatives, but this isn't a peak oil thread so let's just leave it at that...

 

 

I demonstrated the first point multiple times in previous messages, complete with links. High debt levels, especially for a consumer spending economy like that of the U.S., and coupled with high oil prices due to peak oil, does not make the situation any safer. That's why much of the good news you are seeing is based on fudged numbers, e.g., month-by-month unemployment rather than broad unemployment, equating part-time with full-time employment, no economic recovery but simply Keynesian economics involving lowered interest rates leading to more investments in an already overpriced stock market, etc. That's why thanks to such conditions and the bailouts, the rich have not only recovered what they lost they even profited. And the rest of the country? See one of the links I gave for details.

You're basically just repeating the same points, though, without explaining why high debt levels are supposed to be bad. You're talking about completely nonsequitur points with assymetries in wealth and income growth among the rich and the poor, stimulus and investment acts, etc. That's all peripheral. I'm asking, why is a high debt level supposed to be a problem right now? What specifically will happen if we run high debt? You have yet to clarify that point.

 

Despite your rant against Keynesian economics, the ideas put forth have actually performed remarkably well these last 5 years, and the ideas you and others continue to espouse have been proven wrong at every turn... Just sayin... Calling something Keynesian isn't actually a slur since it works and is empirically supported.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/the-confidence-gnomes/

[overtone]

 

You appear to be confusing debt level with easy credit again;

and with absence of competent financial industry regulation.

You can only get the first by having the second, and the second by the third

That is

 

1) false, both in evidence (the US debt levels rose sharply in tandem with the Crash and recent tightening of credit, also in tandem with the huge borrowing for WWII, and so forth) and in theory (large increases in the public debt level, massive government borrowing, usually tighten the private credit market in standard economic theory) ; and neither requires slack financial industry regulation in fact (note the periods of easy credit and various debt levels in the US between WWII and 1980, under fairly strict financial regulation) or in theory (competent financial regulation merely curbs abuses - genuinely sound loans of available money are not affected regardless of demand, rates offered, etc).

 

2) irrelevant to your argument - whether or not the one requires the other, high debt level is not what leads to speculation or consumption of resources. High debt levels are blamed for much of the sharp drop in consumption in the US recently, and that was predicted by standard economic theory despite the historically easy credit that has been the norm in the US for years now (even after the recent tightening).

 

 

 

The two major factors are energy and resources.

Your last point is easy to explain: our definition of prosperity is based on money. We have lots of that and can create it easily

Energy is a resource. Other major factors, besides resources, are productivity and and market access. If energy were the single dominant factor, Japan would be one of the poorest countries on the planet and Texas would be the richest State in the Union.

[ralfy]

You have yet to explain why you believe high debt levels are bad, and continue instead to implicitly ask us to accept without justification that this is so. Why do you believe high debt is a problem for us right now? What will happen exactly if we continue running current debt or even higher debt levels? Please explain.

I already explained to you why high debt levels are bad. There are multiple links given in previous messages. Go over them carefully.

 

Sure, why not? A bit of inflation would be very good for jobs right now and would make exports in US dollars more attractive to purchasers in other currencies. As strange as this might sound, part of our current problem is that inflation is too low right now. Again, why do you see this (increased supply of dollars) as a problem?

Oil prices tripling is not "a bit of inflation."

 

Now this is where you're just wrong. Demand went up because investments were made, more jobs were created, and people had money to spend. When people have money to spend, they buy things they need and want. This then creates additional demand as their spending becomes the income of the retailer and the producer, who use that money to buy more things... and it's a self-reinforcing cycle with a multiplier effect.

You can only make investments when you create more dollars. All you did was prove my point further.

 

This is not about "more dollars" being created, but instead about investing in programs that create (or save) jobs. Firing teachers and firefighters meant fewer people could buy groceries or pay their bills. By having a stimulus, we could keep those people in their jobs, which means they didn't default on their bills and didn't have to collect unemployment insurance or food stamps. The people to whom they pay their bills also could stay in business, as they were having their debt obligations met.

One more time: you can only make more investments when you create more money. That's your "stimulus."

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/quantitative-easing-is-a-ponzi-scheme-dever-qm3k_g8xRbyhUGGvYgxIjA.html

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/qe2-a-ponzi-scheme-says-pimcos-gross-2010-10-27

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/bill-gross-fed-ponzi_n_774849.html

 

http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/an-idiots-guide-to-quantitative-easing-what-is-quantitative-easing-is-qe3-a-looming-apocalypse/

 

How much are we looking at now? Around 850 billion dollars every month?

 

You are here trying to oversimplify things, and it seems to be leading you to make incredibly flawed and false conclusions. Demand did not go down due to the increase in dollars or printed money. Demand went down because the banking system started to collapse, massive layoffs happened, and people lost their incomes so could not spend money... thus causing other people to lose their jobs as demand for their products and services went down... lather, rinse, repeat. The infusion of money into the system was a RESPONSE to the crisis, not a cause of it.

Demand has been going down for the U.S., EU, and Japan since 2008, but has been going up for the rest of the world:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

Why do you think printing money has led to increased oil demand globally? Much more simple explanations exist, like the growing middle class in China and India where people finally have higher income jobs and can now afford to buy things that require oil. You don't need to invoke increases in the currency supply to explain this incredibly straight forward phenomenon. Also, we're not at peak oil yet, and we have alternatives, but this isn't a peak oil thread so let's just leave it at that...

Again, you're just repeating my arguments.

 

Also, the IEA confirmed that conventional oil production peaked in 2005:

 

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil

 

When you refer to alternatives, then that shows that we are at peak oil. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the former.

 

Worse, if you look at it in terms of population, then oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:

 

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html

 

All of these were explained in the peak oil thread, but you are not bothering to find out what is taking place by yourself. Instead, you make me waste my time explaining the basics of this issue and others to you.

 

You're basically just repeating the same points, though, without explaining why high debt levels are supposed to be bad. You're talking about completely nonsequitur points with assymetries in wealth and income growth among the rich and the poor, stimulus and investment acts, etc. That's all peripheral. I'm asking, why is a high debt level supposed to be a problem right now? What specifically will happen if we run high debt? You have yet to clarify that point.

No, they are not non-sequitur, as explained in links given earlier. The problem is that you got it the other way round: quantitative easing IS what is peripheral in this topic. You're not looking deeper into this issue and instead find comfort in that.

 

The high debt level has been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't get it: high debt levels means more money has to be created to pay for previous debts. The material resources needed to buy those goods do not go up as easily, and in the case of conventional oil production, is going the other way round. At the same time, you see more market volatility.

 

Put simply, we now have a credit market that is twenty times larger than the real economy:

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

 

Take not that "only" one trillion dollars' worth of that, in the form of subprime lending, led to the 2008 crash. That crash led to over thirty trillion dollars vaporized worldwide, with government scrambling to bail out banks. Most of the bail out money came from public debt, while in the case of the U.S., the bailout money was used by the rich for the rich:

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/

 

Despite your rant against Keynesian economics, the ideas put forth have actually performed remarkably well these last 5 years, and the ideas you and others continue to espouse have been proven wrong at every turn... Just sayin... Calling something Keynesian isn't actually a slur since it works and is empirically supported.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/the-confidence-gnomes/

How do you explain these points from the same writer?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/krugman-rich-mans-recovery.html

That is

 

1) false, both in evidence (the US debt levels rose sharply in tandem with the Crash and recent tightening of credit, also in tandem with the huge borrowing for WWII, and so forth) and in theory (large increases in the public debt level, massive government borrowing, usually tighten the private credit market in standard economic theory) ; and neither requires slack financial industry regulation in fact (note the periods of easy credit and various debt levels in the US between WWII and 1980, under fairly strict financial regulation) or in theory (competent financial regulation merely curbs abuses - genuinely sound loans of available money are not affected regardless of demand, rates offered, etc).

Debt levels had been going up before the crash and primarily because of deregulation, from 1981 onward:

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

 

The whole scheme fell apart by 2008 with fallout from the subprime lending market.

 

2) irrelevant to your argument - whether or not the one requires the other, high debt level is not what leads to speculation or consumption of resources. High debt levels are blamed for much of the sharp drop in consumption in the US recently, and that was predicted by standard economic theory despite the historically easy credit that has been the norm in the US for years now (even after the recent tightening).

Completely wrong: you cannot have one without the other. Your second point about speculation and consumption proves my argument. The third point also proves my argument, except that "standard economic theory" did not predict this. Not even close. In fact, those who did were criticized by most:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17pessimist-t.html

 

 

Energy is a resource. Other major factors, besides resources, are productivity and and market access. If energy were the single dominant factor, Japan would be one of the poorest countries on the planet and Texas would be the richest State in the Union.

I am referring to material resources.

 

You need energy to obtain those resources, to have higher productivity, and even to gain market access.

 

The reason why energy is not seen as a "single dominant factor" is because economies are measured in money. Ironically, it's the same money that is causing problems for the global economy. Hence,

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/04/japan-quantitative-easing-70bn

[iNow]

I already explained to you why high debt levels are bad. There are multiple links given in previous messages. Go over them carefully.

Tell me which one, and which argument you find within it that is somehow compelling. It's not my job to read the entirety of all of the 200 links you've pasted into this thread (as if arguing using the gish gallop).

 

Oil prices tripling is not "a bit of inflation."

I'm referring to core inflation, not headline inflation that is incredibly volatile like oil and food. Also, oil prices are down relative to last year, so tripling since when? Also, not likely to be explained by inflation, but by increased demand and higher regional volatility... as already corrected for you like nine times.

 

You can only make investments when you create more dollars.

There is so much ignorance and wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin, at it's root, though, you're conflating income and wealth creation and focused investment with the printing of money.

 

The rest of your post... as per usual... is little more than another peak oil diatribe, and I have no interest in trying to force a complex and nuanced set of economic circumstances into such a myopic, ideological, and one-size fits all worldview.

 

This isn't a thread about peak oil, and the mods have been asked to split it, but alas... we're still here.

[overtone]

 

 

Debt levels had been going up before the crash and primarily because of deregulation, from 1981 onward

1)Whose? The public debt?

 

2) That illustrates the fact that easy credit - not the most significant part of the deregulation - was not the driving factor. If you look at what was, another driver of more importance was tax cuts for the rich - the resulting diversion of productivity gains away from wages and other payouts reduced almost everyone's ability to retire debt undertaken before the tax regime was altered.

 

 

 

The high debt level has been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't get it: high debt levels means more money has to be created to pay for previous debts. The material resources needed to buy those goods do not go up as easily, and in the case of conventional oil production, is going the other way round.

Increases in productivity are the best way to retire debt - and create money, for that matter.

 

 

Completely wrong: you cannot have one without the other.

So I'm completely right - one is not the "cause" of the other, but rather they are mutually influential.

 

And you are partially wrong - you can in fact, for example, have high debt levels without easy credit, as the victims of depressions and crashes and wars and droughts and plagues have discovered periodically over the centuries.

 

 

I am referring to material resources.

Energy is a material resource.

 

You need energy to obtain those resources, to have higher productivity, and even to gain market access

And you need productivity and market access to acquire energy, and to profit from the use of it. Three legged stools need all three legs. The people of England sat on its huge piles of easily mined coal for a thousand years, after the Romans had cut down all the trees to makle cement and steel, in poverty and misery and plague.

 

You don't, by the way, need more energy for higher productivity - quite often, indeed almost by definition, you need less.

 

 

 

The reason why energy is not seen as a "single dominant factor" is because economies are measured in money.

People with very clear and sophisticated ideas about money have looked very carefully at energy and its crucial economic role for a long, long time.

 

Money is measured in economies as often as economies are measured in money - there's an entire market devoted to currency trading on this planet.

[iNow]

The high debt level has been explained to you multiple times, and you still don't get it: high debt levels means more money has to be created to pay for previous debts.

Okay, but then why do you feel that printing more money is bad? I'm genuinely curious... What do you think happens if we run high debt and print money to pay it? Walk us through it. You'll find it's not really the problem you think it is.

[ralfy]

1)Whose? The public debt?

Total debt, including public debt.

 

 

2) That illustrates the fact that easy credit - not the most significant part of the deregulation - was not the driving factor. If you look at what was, another driver of more importance was tax cuts for the rich - the resulting diversion of productivity gains away from wages and other payouts reduced almost everyone's ability to retire debt undertaken before the tax regime was altered.

 

It was easy credit:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Causes

 

 

 

Increases in productivity are the best way to retire debt - and create money, for that matter.

 

 

That actually reinforces my views. Don't forget that you can also create money without increasing productivity.

 

 

So I'm completely right - one is not the "cause" of the other, but rather they are mutually influential.

 

Tax cuts led to increasing public debt, but it was easy credit that led to higher total debt. In fact, the latter is feeding the former, as seen in tens of billions a month in quantitative easing. But contrary to fantasies of kicking the can continuously,

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-federal-reserve-taper-ben-bernanke-stimulus-20131218,0,4171964.story

 

 

 

And you are partially wrong - you can in fact, for example, have high debt levels without easy credit, as the victims of depressions and crashes and wars and droughts and plagues have discovered periodically over the centuries.

 

 

Also easy credit:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression#Austrian_School

 

 

 

Energy is a material resource.

 

 

No, it's not.

 

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

 

 

 

And you need productivity and market access to acquire energy, and to profit from the use of it. Three legged stools need all three legs. The people of England sat on its huge piles of easily mined coal for a thousand years, after the Romans had cut down all the trees to makle cement and steel, in poverty and misery and plague.

 

 

Not initially:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704436004576299421455133398

 

 

 

You don't, by the way, need more energy for higher productivity - quite often, indeed almost by definition, you need less.

 

 

Yes, you do, unless by "productivity" you mean something like investing in financial markets. Your last point is completely wrong.

 

 

 

People with very clear and sophisticated ideas about money have looked very carefully at energy and its crucial economic role for a long, long time.

 

 

No, they're not, which is why oil prices tripled.

 

 

 

Money is measured in economies as often as economies are measured in money - there's an entire market devoted to currency trading on this planet.

The first phrase makes no sense at all: "measured in economies"?

 

The last part of the sentence proves my argument.

Tell me which one, and which argument you find within it that is somehow compelling. It's not my job to read the entirety of all of the 200 links you've pasted into this thread (as if arguing using the gish gallop).

200 links? I gave only six for that point.

 

And it's not my job to spoon-feed you on that. You wanted an explanation? I gave it.

 

I'm referring to core inflation, not headline inflation that is incredibly volatile like oil and food. Also, oil prices are down relative to last year, so tripling since when? Also, not likely to be explained by inflation, but by increased demand and higher regional volatility... as already corrected for you like nine times.

Tripling since 2005 (from 30 dollars to almost a hundred), when conventional oil production peaked, according to the IEA. The last time that took place was during the early '70s. Good thing Saudi Arabia was there to help.

 

Now, we have almost double the population and increasing consumption for the rest of the world. At a 2-pct oil demand increase per annum the last three decades, we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to stay afloat.

 

And we're relying on unconventional oil which has low energy returns and steep decline curves to solve that issue, not to mention a transition to renewable energy that will require decades. Given that, good luck with the fantasy of continuous bailouts.

 

There is so much ignorance and wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin, at it's root, though, you're conflating income and wealth creation and focused investment with the printing of money.

Actually, that was what YOU were doing. I tried to resolve the issue by referring to a real economy involving resources such as oil. You kept ignoring that.

 

Thanks for proving my argument.

 

The rest of your post... as per usual... is little more than another peak oil diatribe, and I have no interest in trying to force a complex and nuanced set of economic circumstances into such a myopic, ideological, and one-size fits all worldview.

Notice how this paragraph CONTRADICTS your previous one. In the previous one, you argue that I was conflating income and wealth with money, which is what you've been doing as you ignore the importance of oil and other resources for the economy.

 

This isn't a thread about peak oil, and the mods have been asked to split it, but alas... we're still here.

See what I mean? You prefer to talk about income and wealth in terms of money, which is why you're not interested at all in understanding how energy and material resources are critical to an economy. Why do you keep insisting on holding on to such a narrow world view, especially given the fact that the Fed is running out of steam?

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-federal-reserve-taper-ben-bernanke-stimulus-20131218,0,4171964.story

 

Finally, I am clearly wasting my time having to explain problems in your argument, which is why I am putting your account and Overtone's in my ignore list.

Edited December 19, 2013 by ralfy

[iNow]

Again, feel free to open a thread about peak oil. This isn't the place to discuss it. Likewise, you assert many things and argue against people's positions by basically saying, "Nuh uh," so I'm not terribly hurt by your decision to put me on ignore. It probably will work out better for all involved.

[ralfy]

"About That 'Bull Market Til 2016' Call: Before You Buy the Dip, Check Out This Chart"

 

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2013/12/about-that-bull-market-til-2016-call.html

 

"Nope, No Bubbles Anywhere"

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-13/nope-no-bubbles-anywhere

[overtone]

 

 

1)Whose? The public debt?

 

Total debt, including public debt.

That's a nonsense number - most of that debt is owed to other people in the economy, which should be subtracted from rather than added to your number.

 

 

 

It was easy credit:

https://en.wikipedia...ecession#Causes

1) We weren't talkin about the 2008 recession alone, you're changing the subject, and 2) your link does not demonstrate that easy credit was even a major cause, let alone the one and only - it talks about low interest rates, and severe trade imbalances, being major underlying factors, goes into some stuff we recongize as being conseqeunces of deregulation of the banks, etc.

 

 

 

Tax cuts led to increasing public debt, but it was easy credit that led to higher total debt.

"Total debt" is a nonsense number.

 

Tax cuts for the rich (only) led to increasing private debt as well, as pruductivity gains were siphoned off from the middle class and their ability to retire debt was reduced simultaneously with their increased need to borrow.

 

 

 

The first phrase makes no sense at all: "measured in economies"?

It is routine to value a currency on the basis of the economy backing it. That's what a currency market does in the short run.

 

The present and future availability and price of oil, coal, natural gas, and other such physical (material) energy resources, is incorporated into longer term analyses routinely, and has been for many, many years.