" The administration's top economist certainly changed his mind about deficits very late in the game. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, recently denied that deficits raise interest rates and depress private investments. Yet Mr. Hubbard is also the author of an economics textbook; as Berkeley's J. Bradford DeLong points out on his influential Web site, the 2002 edition of that textbook explains how, yes, deficits raise interest rates and depress private investment.
There's a reason Mr. Hubbard said what he did in his textbook. When the government sells bonds it competes with private borrowers. By the usual rules of economics, this competition should, other things equal, drive interest rates higher and investment lower. There are exceptions to economic rules, but someone who suddenly discovers such an exception at the precise moment his political masters need a cover story isn't credible. "
The undisputed queen of liberal economics has just made it official ........ higher deficits means higher rates ....
It never fails to amaze me some of the perceptions out there. I talked to a guy the other day who said, and I quote,"Reagan was fortunate in that he didn't have the Soviet Union to contend with". Now comes a guy/gal, and I'm sure there are many more, who actually believes with certainty the budget deficit is almost 100% due to the Bush tax cut.
I feel it's great for us when it's wide as we all know but the pundits feel it will not last. They say it will slowly flatten this year & cause NLY to correct somewhat in price.
I honestly must admit I'm not certain where I read this maybe on this board.
As far as my strong opinions I really wish that this President select will succeed in some of his many quests. Republicans, Demos, Indeps, Liberts & Greenies we all need to hope or pray his decisions are the right ones & take us in the right course for the next 2 yrs. Time will tell us if he's up to this awesome task at this difficult time. I must say Bush scares me as much as JBJ & Nixon only this time with the Bush foreign policy we are getting involved in more than just 1 threat. This Nuclear Armagendon rhetoric is unthinkable!
Now my question to you is what is your opinion as to how NLY will react to the Iraq invasion?
Regan did not get a Nobel Peace Price due to his involvement in Iran Contra with Bush Sr. You don't give a peace prize to leaders who give guns to murderers that kill Nuns, Priests & children. He admitted this crime (which was the one wise bit of advice from his advisors he ever rec'd) which was a disgrace to his country & 1000 times worse than a
By the way Bush's polls have fallen from 61% to 53% from last week. Another genius Republican President. A confused foreign policy that has everyone of his people with differing opinions on how to handle the No. Korean problem that has exploded into such a serious situation that it took a Democratic Gov from Arizona to cool down.
Bush has stepped into a bag of
Bush never told us that his tax cuts would take us from a surplus to a deficit did he? Bush didn't tell us his $300 to $600 tax cuts last year would be taken from our cities & states did he? Bush never told us that it would cause our state taxes to soar as well as our cities to pass higher sales taxes & property taxes due to huge deficits from a failing Republican economy did he?.
Clinton gave him a gift that he sadly squandered. And we were sold his bag of
Thanks for the $600 in 2002 Dumya my property taxes only went up 52% an extra $450 per month. I just love Trickle Down Economics it's so effective.
"but what seems OBVIOUS to me is that we are now significantly WORSE off as a result of having "won" it."
Needless to say I totally disagree and I'd bet a few bucks that there are many folks in Easter Europe who would disagree as well.
We might both site the same examples and still draw different conclusions where Reagan is concerned.
Wild "boom and bust" economic cycles are (in some places like Gt Britain) considered to be undesirable, and the sign of an immature economic approach to monetary governance. That point could of course be argued either way. Whether Reagan had much to do with the boom that hit the economy 6-8 years after he left office is another question entirely. Most Reps credit the 103rd Congress and Gingrich's "contract with America." I think Gates had more to do with it than anybody in Government.
As for the "cold war" (again Reagans' part in it could be debated), but what seems OBVIOUS to me is that we are now significantly WORSE off as a result of having "won" it. We used to have one incompetent enemy with control over it's WOMD, no intention of ever using them, and a world full of friends and allies. Too bad the USSR lost in Afgahnistan (with our help and Stingers), or we might still have the Trade Towers.