From the NYT:
New research from TransUnion, the credit information service, predicts that some 1.5 million homeowners who were forced out of the mortgage market after the housing bust will have recovered sufficiently to re-enter the market sometime between now and 2017.
But creditworthiness alone does not a buyer make. Other studies suggest that the fallout from the financial crisis is still a hindrance for many Americans, and that the national homeownership rate will continue to fall in coming years.
The TransUnion study, released on Wednesday, tracked the credit trajectory of the roughly seven million homeowners who had been “negatively impacted” by the economic downturn as of the end of 2009. That category includes homeowners who were at least 60 days delinquent on a mortgage, had lost a home to foreclosure or short sale, or had obtained a modification to a distressed loan.
Borrowers who suffer such a major credit event are usually ineligible for another loan backed by Fannie Mae, the Federal Housing Administration or other government entities until after waiting periods of two to seven years have passed.
TransUnion found that, as of the end of 2014, 1.2 million credit-weakened borrowers had recovered to a level at which they would meet Fannie Mae’s underwriting guidelines. This meant they had a minimum FICO score of 620 and no unpaid judgments or liens pending, and were beyond a required loan waiting period.
As for how many more borrowers are expected to recover in coming years, TransUnion predicts 700,000 this year, 300,000 in 2016, and a half million in 2017.
…
Compared with first-time buyers, this population “presumably has a higher desire and interest in getting a mortgage because they’ve had one before,” he noted.
Frist..
I will be strong today….
I will be strong today….
#cheappoliticalhack
Obama jumping on any shooting to push his political anti-firearms agenda.
Saw I wasn’t there for you last night but I had family stuff.
I’m going back to not kicking the hornets nest. Suggest you do the same.
[2] left wing
I don’t know if I imagined it our not but did his O-ness repeatedly refer to the pro 2A citizens as “the other side”? I have this recollection of a reporter (Bob Schieffer) questioning him on that and getting rebuffed. Reminded me of when he referred to republicans as “enemies.”
And this morning I saw this gem:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/06/18/charleston-church-shooting-heckler-interrupts-coverage-bts-nr.cnn?iid=ob_mobile_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork
Finally, CNN is doing its part by reporting that gun ownership is down but they base it on a poll. These days if anyone asks me if I have guns at home, I say no and I tell my kids to say no too. As a lawyer, I’m much more attuned to how gov views ownership I’ve read and heard too much to allow me to trust anyone I don’t know. The only time j will admit ownership is when A cop asks me if I’m carrying and I am. Otherwise, I say nothing. That’s why polls show declining ownership in the face of record sales.
Former cop, now a judge, commenting on fox a couple of nights ago admitted what I’ve always known: as a cop, he wanted gun control. He wanted to be the only one legally carrying. He felt safer and it made things easier–if he found someone with a gun, that person was a hood. Easy.
Agree. Like to participate in this discussion with you but for the reasons stated above I’ll pass.
Re: punkin, lol, thanks for the support. I really enjoy the engaged debate on this board. Hard to have an intelligent conversation when one starts an argument with a thesis as fact though…nine posts in a row on one of my hot buttons with one answer…I’m getting better. Equivalent of using the mens room and lingering a bit in the bar on Friday night, rather than a full bender.
Just saw this story on CNN. Guaranteed to make Joyce extremely confused.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/20/us/ohio-suicide-by-cop-officer-killed/index.html
Cincinnati is another like Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore … Ring fence it and let them kill themselves off
Pumpkin…the us was a major superpower before keynes.published a single.paper.on.economics….nice try
My respect for Ben increases.
The pumpkin continues to rot, smiling and rambling, due to its inability to even grasp how ignorant and incapable of coherent thought it is.
[9] ragnar,
Still isn’t the tool anon is.
But I will say one positive thing about anon: he has the rare gift of brevity. He can display more idiocy and ignorance in one sentence than pumpkin can in a whole series of posts.
Let’s get back to the important subject: determining the bounty on Punkin’s head.
I’ll pay $5,000 for three fingers. That should solve our immediate problem.
Maybe someone can send Punkin a copy of Das Kapital. That should give him a mental boner for at least a week or so.
This is one of my favorite listings – Mtn. Lakes, new construction, house looks about 12 feet deep. But look at the price change history – Truly amazing, listed over 3 years ago, dozens of price adjustments. At what point do the Seller’s realize that they are the main problem with the house. Their architecht is the second problem:
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/2120911981_zpid/mostrecentchange_sort/40.932709,-74.184666,40.762601,-74.499149_rect/11_zm
/X1.dash.SSqi1d1nfhfhmz_3e7gq_sse/0_mmm/
Date Event Price $/sqft Source
06/20/15 Price change $598,000-0.2% $217 —
06/03/15 Price change $599,000-4.2% $217 —
05/04/15 Listed for sale $625,000-3.7% $227 Agent
02/13/15 Listing removed $649,000 $235 —
01/01/15 Price change $649,000-0.1% $235 —
12/28/14 Price change $649,900-0.0% $236 —
12/14/14 Price change $650,000+1.7% $236 —
11/17/14 Price change $639,000-1.2% $232 —
11/12/14 Price change $647,000-0.3% $235 —
11/08/14 Price change $648,900-0.0% $235 —
11/01/14 Price change $649,000-1.2% $235 —
10/24/14 Price change $657,000-0.1% $238 —
10/19/14 Price change $657,800-0.0% $239 —
10/12/14 Price change $657,900-0.2% $239 —
10/02/14 Price change $659,000+0.2% $239 —
09/30/14 Price change $657,478-1.9% $238 —
09/25/14 Price change $670,000-0.7% $243 —
09/21/14 Price change $675,000-0.6% $245 —
09/05/14 Price change $679,000-1.3% $246 —
08/01/14 Price change $688,000-0.1% $250 —
06/06/14 Price change $689,000-1.3% $250 —
05/28/14 Price change $698,000-0.1% $253 —
04/26/14 Price change $699,000-4.1% $253 —
04/06/14 Price change $729,000-1.4% $264 —
12/18/13 Price change $739,000-1.2% $268 —
11/19/13 Price change $748,000-5.1% $271 —
08/26/13 Listed for sale $788,000-12.2% $286 Owner
04/21/13 Listing removed $898,000 $326 —
03/26/13 Price change $898,000-5.5% $326 —
02/20/13 Listed for sale $950,000+5.9% $345 Owner
08/17/12 Listing removed $897,000 $325 —
06/18/12 Listed for sale $897,000+0.8% $325 Owner
04/26/12 Listing removed $890,000 $323 —
03/07/12 Listed for sale $890,000 $323 Agent
Anytime you collapse a currency, you allow for irrational behavior and revolutionary behavior to take place. Who wants to go through that hell? That’s the whole point, to avoid the pain of major busts.
No it doesn’t. Currency collapses happen all the time without revolution. It’s the end your bank account, not the world. It’s a result of out of control debt obligations. Nothing grows these obligations more than Keynesianism. Who wants to go through that? No one.
Just think of the 1800′s and chaos comes to mind. You think a civil war is a sign of good times? That war was fought over economic systems. I want to avoid situations like that at all cost. The 1800′s ended with the gilded age. The name says it all. That was a living hell for a lot of people. It got so bad that progressive movement came about from that economic disaster. If it didn’t get so bad, you wouldn’t have progressives. They wouldn’t exist. They exist out of a need.
That war was fought over political differences. The 1800s were a decade of a net zero inflation in which a fledgeling nation of 13 colonies transformed itself into the premiere economic powerhouse. It’s the equivalent of starting in last place and ending in first place. Your negative spin on the century does not coincide with the major growth that occurred…all without Keynesian policies.
Now, Germany and Japan were new countries under new economic systems. You should not compare the wwII Germany and Japan with the post war Germany and Japan. Totally different. So can’t even use that as an example.
I’m not even going to try to make sense of what you said. What you fail to realize was that Germany and Japan were in rubbles after world war 2. Furthermore, they were both occupied nations. Somehow, these two countries grow at a faster pace than the rest of Europe and Asia? I wonder why? Might it have something to do with the fact that we wouldn’t let them dedicate their gdp to military spending? France gave up in 2 days so their country was not reduced to rubble. Yet Germany, a country we steam rolled over somehow ended up with a stronger economy in a matter of a decade. There’s a reason Germany recovered faster than France…
As for history, every empire that has fallen is an example of an economic collapse. Since most of these empires were based on capitalistic fundamentals, there are your examples.
You seem to confuse the foundation of the empire with the collapse. Rome achieved prosperity through forming a Republic and capitalistic principles. Rome completely collapsed due to abandoning the republic in favor of a dictatorial empire. The empire embarked on a taxation/spending binge and later resorted to currency debasement. Seems they abandoned capitalism.
[12] clot
Throw in three fingers from each of anon’s hands and I’ll quadruple it.
Ben, how did China catch up to this country in 30 years after abandoning communism? They were at the bottom of the barrel. Then they applied Keynesian principles to a command economy based on capitalism, and in a blink of an eye made huge gains based on a system you are bashing.
1800’s could have been that much better under Keynesian economics. Too bad they were incapable of understanding this level of economics at this time. They were still busy learning from their mistakes with the primitive form of economics.
Your type of economic thinkers based on simple supply demand /scarcity models made a big hoot about the govt debt in 2012. Almost shut down our govt on bs economics. The debt is out of control…blah blah blah. Still standing 3 years later. How is this possible? Maybe your understanding of debt is totally misunderstood and used as a fear tactic on avg people who have no understanding of advanced economic though on govt debt under a fiat currency controlled by a central bank. No understanding, otherwise you would not have tried to shut down govt over this issue and make it a party’s fight line.
I don’t know what your definition of superpower is, but America became a superpower after wwII. They were not a superpower prior to that war. Do you think Japan would have attacked a superpower? Sure, a few smart Japanese generals realized what America could become, that they would awaken a sleeping giant with an attack, but the overall consensus did not look at the United States as a superpower or they would not have attacked.
Good description of American economic potential before 1914.
““Britain has the earth, and Germany wants it.” Such was Woodrow Wilson’s analysis of the First World War in the summer of 1916, as recorded by one of his advisors. And what about the United States? Before the 1914 war, the great economic potential of the U.S. was suppressed by its ineffective political system, dysfunctional financial system, and uniquely violent racial and labor conflicts. “America was a byword for urban graft, mismanagement and greed-fuelled politics, as much as for growth, production, and profit,” Tooze writes.”
Why did America became a superpower under liberal Democrat FDR?
Under FDR, the economy grew out of the Great Depression (caused by laisez-faire Republican capitalism) at the highest rates in American history. Even before the start of WWII spending, the economy was growing fast thanks to FDR’s New Deal programs. When he became president the unemployment rate was around 25%. After his New Deal programs, unemployment was cut down to 13% and that is before WWII even started.
Conservatives claim that growth only started after WWII. That is false, but even if that were the case, what does government WWII spending creating a huge economic expanision prove? It proves KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS works.
HISTORICAL REAL GDP
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?Req…
Update: Radical,
Are you kidding me? The fastest rate of GDP growth happened under FDR. You are saying without any proof that if a Republican was president, they would be even higher?
Take not that Herbert Hoover was a republican. The economy crashed under laisez-faire Republican capitalism. It continued to tank for 4 years. After FDR became president it tanked 1 more year and then went up from there.
Update 2: ======================
Tommy,
You are 100% wrong. The economy stopped tanking 1 year after FDR became president. Look at historical GDP numbers. I included the link above. Get educated.
When we’re done copying and pasting from yahoo/answers… maybe we could try something different:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html
Many historians, most of the general public, and even many economists think of Herbert Hoover, the president who preceded Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a defender of laissez-faire economic policy. According to this view, Hoover’s dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. The reality is quite different. Far from being a bystander, Hoover actively intervened in the economy, advocating and implementing polices that were quite similar to those that Franklin Roosevelt later implemented. Moreover, many of Hoover’s interventions, like those of his successor, caused the Great Depression to be “great”—that is, to last a long time.
….
Hoover did not stand idly by after the depression began. To fight the rapidly worsening depression, Hoover extended the size and scope of the federal government in six major areas: (1) federal spending, (2) agriculture, (3) wage policy, (4) immigration, (5) international trade, and (6) tax policy.
Consider federal government spending. (See Fiscal Policy.) Federal spending in the 1929 budget that Hoover inherited was $3.1 billion. He increased spending to $3.3 billion in 1930, $3.6 billion in 1931, and $4.7 billion and $4.6 billion in 1932 and 1933, respectively, a 48% increase over his four years. Because this was a period of deflation, the real increase in government spending was even larger: The real size of government spending in 1933 was almost double that of 1929.5 The budget deficits of 1931 and 1932 were 52.5% and 43.3% of total federal expenditures. No year between 1933 and 1941 under Roosevelt had a deficit that large.6 In short, Hoover was no defender of “austerity” and “budget cutting.”
I just glanced at this one (I often really don’t review these kind of posts very closely). Please help me to understand a bit. Obviously the price is out of whack, but is the main problem that it is sterile? Bad lot? I see certain fixtures that make me think it is a Home Depot special……is it sort of generic fixtures that are stylized, but not really well-made? What is the main issue? The FSBO is obviously a problem too…..
homeboken says:
June 20, 2015 at 10:24 am
This is one of my favorite listings – Mtn. Lakes, new construction, house looks about 12 feet deep. But look at the price change history – Truly amazing, listed over 3 years ago, dozens of price adjustments. At what point do the Seller’s realize that they are the main problem with the house. Their architecht is the second problem:
The idea that China’s progress over the past 30 years proves that you truly have sh1t for brains and have no figment of intellectual honesty or self regulation. You know nothing, but you just keep slinging bs.
Joyce, for you!
Your weekly boys in blue gone rogue story
http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/static/media/projects/2015/license-to-launder/index.html
22
Banco Popular Trust Preferred Share : I don’t necessarily have a problem with the house, except for how it has all width and no depth. My personal preference is not in line with a house like this – and I would imagine, new construction in Mtn. Lakes at this price point would be snapped up quickly. But the simple fact that it has not sold and has been on the market with all the price changes etc. is a clear indication to me that something must be really wrong. I haven’t seen the house in person but the location on Fanny Rd, which is a busy double yellow, with no set back, must not be appealing.
Something is very wrong with the house, I don’t know what it is. But the listing history is what I find the most disturbing.
Keynes.believed stimulating.demand was the key to gdp.growth. china has been suppressing demand for 30 years through currency pegs and wage supression. I think you have more stud ying to do. Youve taken econ 101 which is buush1t 101 and bastardized it even more.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Stop treating govt debt like personnel debt! This is why you can’t understand New Keynesianism.
“An essential and enduring insight of Keynes is that what works for a single family in hard times will not work for the global economy. One family whose breadwinner loses a job can and should cut back on spending to make ends meet. But everyone can’t do it at once when there’s generalized weakness because one person’s spending is another’s income. The more people cut back spending to increase their savings, the more the people they used to pay are forced to cut back their own spending, and so on in a downward spiral known as the Paradox of Thrift. Income shrinks so fast that savings fall instead of rise. The result: mass unemployment.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-10-30/why-john-maynard-keyness-theories-can-fix-the-world-economy
“Countries that took emergency measures to reduce public borrowing have mostly suffered weaker growth, as in the case of Britain from 2010 to 2012, Japan this year and the United States after the 2013 “sequester” and fiscal cliff deal. In more extreme cases, such as Italy and Spain, fiscal tightening has plunged them back into deep recession and aggravated financial crises. Meanwhile countries that ignored their deficit problems, as in the United States for most of the post-crisis period, or where governments decided to downplay their fiscal tightening plans, as in Britain this year or Japan in 2013, have generally done better, both in terms of economics and finance. The one major exception has been Germany, where budgetary consolidation has managed to coexist with decent growth, largely because of a boom in machinery exports to Russia and China that is now over, pushing Germany back into the recession its stringent fiscal policy suggested all along.
Thus the six years since 2008 have provided strong empirical support for the supposedly outmoded Keynesian view that government borrowing is more powerful than monetary policy in stimulating severely depressed economies and pulling them out of recession. In a sense, it is odd that the power of fiscal policy has come as a surprise – or that it continues to be categorically denied by the German government and the U.S. Tea Party. The underlying reason why fiscal policy is so important in recessions, and has now come to dominate over monetary policy, is a matter of simple arithmetic that should not be open to debate.
Recessions generally occur when private business and households decide to spend less than their incomes in order to reduce their debts or increase their savings. If this process of “deleveraging” is happening in the private sector, which it clearly has been, then simple arithmetic shows that economic balance can only be restored if some other sector of the economy spends more than its income – and such excess spending is only possible if that “other sector” is willing to increase its debts. Disregarding the role of exports and imports, which must sum to zero for the world as a whole, the government is the only possible candidate to play the crucial balancing role as the “other sector.” It is therefore a mathematical certainty that governments must increase their borrowing whenever businesses and households decide to boost their savings by spending less than they earn.
Despite this indisputable arithmetic, there has been surprisingly little interest in the macroeconomic impact of budgetary policies in contrast to the endless debates about every twist and turn of monetary policy. The explanation lies in the monetarist theories that came to dominate standard economic models of the pre-crisis period – and the related institutional changes that elevated central bankers above finance ministers as the supreme arbiters of economic policy.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/10/31/the-takeaway-from-six-years-of-economic-troubles-keynes-was-right/
23,26- “Chinese economic growth was a primary driver of the world-wide economic recovery from the great depression. Thanks to a massive stimulus program initiated and implemented by the Chinese (a purely Keynes based program), China went on a massive infrastructure build. This in turn increased the country’s demand for raw materials which drove the economic growth of raw materials exporters like Australia, Brazil and Russia. In essence, the BRIC countries — thanks to China’s spending — prevented the world from collapsing into a world wide depression.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/will-china-save-the-world-again-2013-1#ixzz3deomyXm4
So Keynesian economics said this would end in tears, and it did. The precise nature of the tears is to some extent a detail. (If you think the Eurozone crisis was all about fiscal profligacy rather than private sector excess, you are sadly misinformed.) Of course Keynesian economics could not have predicted the perverse reaction to the crisis when it came: austerity in the core as well as the periphery. It could not have predicted it because it was so obviously stupid given a Keynesian framework. But when general austerity came, from 2010 onwards, the implications of Keynesian analysis were clear. Sure enough in 2012 we had the second Eurozone recession, helped along by some perverse monetary policy decisions.
Paul Krugman also tends to note how most of those who bet against Keynesian predictions on interest rates and inflation after 2009 have yet to concede they were wrong, and Keynesian analysis was right. The bad news from the Eurozone is that this kind of denial can go on for fifteen years (and counting)! But there is a reason why we teach Keynesian economics – it works.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2014/05/keynesian-economics-works-eurozone.html
7 – Nom,
Perhaps the NRA should propose the best method of gun control. Lobby for assisted suicide.
In theory, 50 to 75 percent of gun related deaths could be resolved in a cleaner, legal, and safer way.
Score points with progressives, eliminate the statistics used against gun owners, and perhaps give an outlet for the medically insane that doesn’t involve violence.
Punkin, debt is debt. A little bit of debt is stimulative to both individuals and economies, as manageable debt is a financing stimulus that generally leads to both an increase in economic well-being and repayment of principal, with appropriate interest.
Excessive debt does not stimulate further economic activity (in fact, it triggers contraction) and ends in default, which further taxes the resources of parties peripheral to the actual loan transaction. In this manner, entire economies shrink and die.
Why is this so hard for your peanut-sized brain to comprehend?
No offense, as you are in an intellectual league with Bergabe, Yellen, Greenspan, et al. They are a league of dolts the likes of which we’ll never see again: all that edumacation, and no integrity or common sense whatsover.
That is all.
Debt is not an asset. Money is not wealth. Monetarism leads to a complete devaluation of money and a disrespect for the concept of money.
That leads to societal collapse.
Got Mossberg?
I can’t copy and paste, but please do yourself a favor and read this unbiased approach to the debt issue. It doesn’t pick a side, just explains the trade offs with each choice.
I standby the Keynesian route, but that means we must cut back during the good times. You don’t cut govt jobs when the private sector is hurting(recession/depression). You cut govt jobs and spending when the private sector can pick up the slack, when tax revenue is growing and can handle the paying down of debt(upward part of the economic cycle).
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/DebtAndDeficits.pdf
Splat, thanks for the good write ups and for actually being somewhat nice to me. I do understand what you are saying, but I still think during bad times, New Kenyesianism is the most effective route based on the United States unique position of being able to print up money. Having the ability to expand and contract the monetary supply is priceless to have as a weapon. Why would you not use it when times call for it?
As you say, money is just a piece of paper. What the fed did to stop this immense crash in 2008 is exactly what you are supposed to do if you have the unique ability to do it. They were able to keep financial system and economy afloat by plugging up the losses with temporary money. We know this method did not bring harm to the value of currency because it did not bring any inflation or deflation. That’s a fact. So it’s not printing money in the context most people are thinking of. It’s highly complex.
Btw, the tax cuts for the rich by Reagan (trickle down economics) is responsible for a good majority of that debt and income inequality in our economy. What a failure this type of thinking is. Reduce the taxes on the people with the most slack in their wallet and increase them on the people with the least amount of slack in their wallet. That should do wonders for the consumer demand in the economy. Just wonders!
21- Joyce, read page 14 to understand that Hoover was not increasing govt spending in the context of Keynesianism. Keynes even thought that the fdr stimulus was not enough and was proved right by the huge govt spending of wwII.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/DebtAndDeficits.pdf
Blumpkin, go read some history books and come back.
Prior to WWI, the US had the world’s largest economy, I think most would agree that qualifies as a superpower. We weren’t building massive armies and endlessly in “search of monsters to destroy” as we’ve been since WWII but we weren’t exactly a backwater.
And Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they had no oil, their foreign currency reserves were frozen, and they were surrounded by hostiles on all sides. They had no delusions of defeating America, they were looking for a compromise.
So please go get a better grasp of world events before providing any further interpretations. Things take a while to play out.
Let’s see how long the world tolerates the endless money printing and diplomatic bullying. It looks like they’re tiring of it in the east and are paving the way for a new monetary system.
Greece is not the same as the U.S. They can’t print euros’s as a strategy to reduce the blow and work their way out of the mess. They have to abandon the euro because they are the text book version of overbearing debt. The debt you guys are scared of and rightfully so. The U.S. is in a much different position. It’s a unique position due to many factors. Debt matters to the U.S., but in a much more complicated way due to the ability to expand and contrast the monetary system.
“Suppose that there were a way to end this depression. Then Greece’s fiscal problems would melt away, with no need for further cuts. But is there any way to do that?
The answer is, not as long as Greece remains in the euro. It can pursue reforms that might make it more competitive, but anyone promising dramatic, quick results has no idea what he is talking about.
On the other hand, Grexit would produce a rapid improvement in competitiveness, at the cost of possible financial chaos.This is not a route anyone has been willing to go down, but one does have to say that as the crisis worsens it becomes a more plausible outcome.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/06/20/paul-krugman-is-right-greece-should-leave-the-euro/
China needs to buy treasury notes out of need to keep the dollar strong which their exports thrive on. The u.s. has a unique position in the world. As long as it is no1 both economically and militarily, you can kiss any idea of the dollar not ruling the currency world goodbye. China might have the weapons, but they are not anywhere near as well trained as the u.s. in how to use it. They don’t want war with us, they will lose.
“Let’s see how long the world tolerates the endless money printing and diplomatic bullying. It looks like they’re tiring of it in the east and are paving the way for a new monetary system.”
I think 1914, u.s became largest economy in the world, but that doesn’t mean much. Meaning, our economy didn’t control as much of the share of the world’s economy as it does percentage wise today, as it did when it became no 1 in 1914. It’s not until after wwII, when we became a superpower that our economy became the monster that is known as today.
“Prior to WWI, the US had the world’s largest economy, I think most would agree that qualifies as a superpower. We weren’t building massive armies and endlessly in “search of monsters to destroy” as we’ve been since WWII but we weren’t exactly a backwater.”
Yes, the U.S. Had an embargo on oil with Japan, but it was still not obvious to the generals making the decision that the u.s would become a superpower. They had no idea that the attack was suicide. Why would you ever want to attack a superpower? That’s why it’s obvious Japan didn’t view the U.S as the superpower it would become. There were voices sounding the alarm that the attack was a bad idea, but obviously the generals making the decision didn’t realize the potential for how powerful the U.S. really was.
“And Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they had no oil, their foreign currency reserves were frozen, and they were surrounded by hostiles on all sides. They had no delusions of defeating America, they were looking for a compromise.”
And China is busy developing their own military and domestic and capital markets so they can break free of the dollar dependency. But go ahead and think the good time and money printing can go on forever if that’s what you want to believe.
Better maintain a huge military if you want to enforce your vision of fiscal policy though.
My take is that the dollar hegemony is creating huge imbalances in the world. When those imbalance correct the implications will be widespread.
The US share of the world economy is similar today to what its was 100 years ago(19/21%). If you think the US wasn’t a juggernaut then, and that confrontation with the US wasn’t avoided in both world wars until it became absolute necessity, then your mistake.
Go read some books about the conditions that lead to our involvement. Hint: It’s not in your high school textbook.
I should have stated after the war, not today.
“As for the effect of these growing economies on the position of the United States, it all depends on who is doing the growing. The problem for the British Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century was not its substantial decline relative to the United States, a generally friendly power whose interests did not fundamentally conflict with Britain’s. Even in the Western hemisphere, British trade increased as it ceded dominance to the United States. The problem was Britain’s decline relative to Germany, which aimed for supremacy on the European continent, and sought to compete with Britain on the high seas, and in both respects posed a threat to Britain’s core security. In the case of the United States, the dramatic and rapid rise of the German and Japanese economies during the Cold War reduced American primacy in the world much more than the more recent “rise of the rest.” America’s share of the world’s GDP, nearly 50 percent after World War II, fell to roughly 25 percent by the early 1970s, where it has remained ever since. But that “rise of the rest” did not weaken the United States. If anything, it strengthened it. Germany and Japan were and are close democratic allies, key pillars of the American world order. The growth of their economies actually shifted the balance irretrievably against the Soviet bloc and helped bring about its demise.
When gauging the impact of the growing economies of other countries today, one has to make the same kinds of calculations. Does the growth of the Brazilian economy, or of the Indian economy, diminish American global power? Both nations are friendly, and India is increasingly a strategic partner of the United States. If America’s future competitor in the world is likely to be China, then a richer and more powerful India will be an asset, not a liability, to the United States. Overall, the fact that Brazil, India, Turkey, and South Africa are enjoying a period of economic growth—which may or may not last indefinitely—is either irrelevant to America’s strategic position or of benefit to it. At present, only the growth of China’s economy can be said to have implications for American power in the future, and only insofar as the Chinese translate enough of their growing economic strength into military strength. ”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/01/17-us-power-kagan
nwnj says:
June 21, 2015 at 12:30 pm
The US share of the world economy is similar today to what its was 100 years ago(19/21%). If you think the US wasn’t a juggernaut then, and that confrontation with the US wasn’t avoided in both world wars until it became absolute necessity, then your mistake.
Go read some books about the conditions that lead to our involvement. Hint: It’s not in your high school textbook.
The U.S. will not allow China to become currency leaders. They will never allow it. The u.s has played the game smart. China needs us, a lot more than we need them.
All this talk of u.s. power and influence is bs. Read this. Does a great job of summing up why the u.s. is just as powerful now as it was during the Cold War.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/01/17-us-power-kagan
nwnj says:
June 21, 2015 at 12:24 pm
And China is busy developing their own military and domestic and capital markets so they can break free of the dollar dependency. But go ahead and think the good time and money printing can go on forever if that’s what you want to believe.
Better maintain a huge military if you want to enforce your vision of fiscal policy though.
My take is that the dollar hegemony is creating huge imbalances in the world. When those imbalance correct the implications will be widespread.
45- All this talk of u.s power and influence on the decline is bs.
45-
“Powerful as this sense of decline may be, however, it deserves a more rigorous examination. Measuring changes in a nation’s relative power is a tricky business, but there are some basic indicators: the size and the influence of its economy relative to that of other powers; the magnitude of military power compared with that of potential adversaries; the degree of political influence it wields in the international system—all of which make up what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” And there is the matter of time. Judgments based on only a few years’ evidence are problematic. A great power’s decline is the product of fundamental changes in the international distribution of various forms of power that usually occur over longer stretches of time. Great powers rarely decline suddenly. A war may bring them down, but even that is usually a symptom, and a culmination, of a longer process.
The decline of the British Empire, for instance, occurred over several decades. In 1870, the British share of global manufacturing was over 30 percent. In 1900, it was 20 percent. By 1910, it was under 15 percent—well below the rising United States, which had climbed over the same period from more than 20 percent to more than 25 percent; and also less than Germany, which had lagged far behind Britain throughout the nineteenth century but had caught and surpassed it in the first decade of the twentieth century. Over the course of that period, the British navy went from unchallenged master of the seas to sharing control of the oceans with rising naval powers. In 1883, Britain possessed more battleships than all the other powers combined. By 1897, its dominance had been eclipsed. British officials considered their navy “completely outclassed” in the Western hemisphere by the United States, in East Asia by Japan, and even close to home by the combined navies of Russia and France—and that was before the threatening growth of the German navy. These were clear-cut, measurable, steady declines in two of the most important measures of power over the course of a half-century.
Some of the arguments for America’s relative decline these days would be more potent if they had not appeared only in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. Just as one swallow does not make a spring, one recession, or even a severe economic crisis, need not mean the beginning of the end of a great power. The United States suffered deep and prolonged economic crises in the 1890s, the 1930s, and the 1970s. In each case, it rebounded in the following decade and actually ended up in a stronger position relative to other powers than before the crisis. The 1910s, the 1940s, and the 1980s were all high points of American global power and influence.
Less than a decade ago, most observers spoke not of America’s decline but of its enduring primacy. In 2002, the historian Paul Kennedy, who in the late 1980s had written a much-discussed book on “the rise and fall of the great powers,” America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great “disparity of power” as between the United States and the rest of the world. Ikenberry agreed that “no other great power” had held “such formidable advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural, or political capabilities…. The preeminence of American power” was “unprecedented.” In 2004, the pundit Fareed Zakaria described the United States as enjoying a “comprehensive uni-polarity” unlike anything seen since Rome. But a mere four years later Zakaria was writing about the “post-American world” and “the rise of the rest,” and Kennedy was discoursing again upon the inevitability of American decline. Did the fundamentals of America’s relative power shift so dramatically in just a few short years?
The answer is no. Let’s start with the basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy.
Optimists about China’s development predict that it will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world sometime in the next two decades. This could mean that the United States will face an increasing challenge to its economic position in the future. But the sheer size of an economy is not by itself a good measure of overall power within the international system. If it were, then early nineteenth-century China, with what was then the world’s largest economy, would have been the predominant power instead of the prostrate victim of smaller European nations. Even if China does reach this pinnacle again—and Chinese leaders face significant obstacles to sustaining the country’s growth indefinitely—it will still remain far behind both the United States and Europe in terms of per capita GDP.
Military capacity matters, too, as early nineteenth-century China learned and Chinese leaders know today. As Yan Xuetong recently noted, “military strength underpins hegemony.” Here the United States remains unmatched. It is far and away the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and there has been no decline in America’s relative military capacity—at least not yet. Americans currently spend less than $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the other great powers combined. (This figure does not include the deployment in Iraq, which is ending, or the combat forces in Afghanistan, which are likely to diminish steadily over the next couple of years.) They do so, moreover, while consuming a little less than 4 percent of GDP annually—a higher percentage than the other great powers, but in historical terms lower than the 10 percent of GDP that the United States spent on defense in the mid-1950s and the 7 percent it spent in the late 1980s. The superior expenditures underestimate America’s actual superiority in military capability. American land and air forces are equipped with the most advanced weaponry, and are the most experienced in actual combat. They would defeat any competitor in a head-to-head battle. American naval power remains predominant in every region of the world. “
Punkin’ may have moved himself into the TSTL bracket with today’s inane comments.
I think Punkin’ is finally catching on that his future gospel will never happen so now he’s turned to showing us how good he is at misunderstanding history as it never was.
Pumpkin,
do you have a job? a family? a life?
I thought I wasted too much time here.
Comrade,
Ready to stop giving pimpking the benefit of the doubt? I tried that ages ago. The guy puts on an act of thinking, but he really doesnt. He just keeps puking up ignorant drivel and really long content from worthless sources.
He is a reminder of the damage that NJ’s progressive schools can do to less promising students.
There is no question he/she is a troll….and a very effective one…..
Ragnar says:
June 21, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Comrade,
Ready to stop giving pimpking the benefit of the doubt? I tried that ages ago. The guy puts on an act of thinking, but he really doesnt. He just keeps puking up ignorant drivel and really long content from worthless sources.
I literally have no idea what they post…..I have read maybe 20 or so total in the entire series. I think almost all are short ones that do not take any investment of time……I have responded maybe 5-6 times when one of the post really irritated me……this person is extremely effective….I am at a loss at your level of commitment in indulging this poster’s trolling……
Banco Popular Trust Preferred Shares says:
June 21, 2015 at 8:38 pm
There is no question he/she is a troll….and a very effective one…..
[51] ragnar,
I respect that he puts it out there and doesn’t try to use snark in place of analysis, though his analysis leaves much to be desired. Maddening, really.
I suppose if I read his stuff, I’d see why it annoys you all. But I don’t have the time or inclination.
[54] banco
Admit it, if he announced he was going to a GTG, you’d go. I would.
Of course, it wouldn’t be just to see/debate the mighty Michael. I’d be more interested in drinking with y’all.
Anecdotal – lots of expensive property for sale down here on the Navesink. You won’t find them all on zillow. Do the rich think it is time to leave Jersey? MORE taxes are coming if the demo get their millionaire tax wich now starts at 350k income.
We could all get drunk, then beat the shit out of Punkin’.
My idea of fun.
Clot – the sun will still shine regardless of the philosophical jousting, no reason to get silly.
The real question is…if what he says about his salary is true…I want to know who the hell pays him six figures and to do what?
Re: 60 – Like many of us Pumpkin will be taxed more. He might come around when his existence is in jeporday but not before.What say the pumpkin?
You just can’t make this shite up .
“The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday advanced a proposal that will allow the government to subsidize broadband for low-income Americans.
The three Democrats on the five-member commission voted in favor of the proposal, while the two Republicans dissented.
The plan, proposed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, would transform the $2-billion-a-year Lifeline program from a telephone-centric subsidy to one that also covers Internet service, if it is ultimately approved. . . .”
Looking as well as for ways to explore save throughout the your purchase relating to Despicable Me throughout the DVD within the next week or so The Steve Carell animated get in touch with makes their own way to educate yourself regarding DVD and Blu-ray everywhere in the Tuesday, December 14th,it CVS drugstores,regarding all places,are regularly offeLiverpool City Council leaderring a minimum of one concerning best of the best holiday shopping deals exceeding all around the going to be the firs