Replies to post #24200 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[Zeev Hed]

Just observation and back of the envelope calculation. The Europeans believe 3% is the max deficit allowed, ifmemory serves, but I would assume they added a little room for extreme situations. Mind you, budget surpluses are just as murderous, in the last 100 years, every period of budget surpluses (two years and more than 1% of GDP, if memory serves) resulted in a major bear market within a year or two, including the bear that started in 2000. That of course is the mirror impact of deficit, deficit stimulate the economy while surpluses soak money from the economy eventually causing retrenchments. During 2000, I have mentioned this historical fact tme and gain to support my generl bearish stance at the time, but no one listened. At the time there was the belief that we may have a 160 B surplus in 2001, and my suggestion was send a check of $1000 to each of the roughly 160 MM tax payers, it took the government a little time, but they ended up doing about half that much (g). The ideal situation would be a balanced budget with minimal surplusesof no more than about .5% o GDP, IMHO. If it looks as if the surplus will go higher, Congress should have "stand by legislation" that triggers sending some of the money back to tax payers, once a year.

Zeev

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)

[Zeev Hed]

Just observation and back of the envelope calculation. The Europeans believe 3% is the max deficit allowed, if memory serves, but I would assume they added a little room for extreme situations. Mind you, budget surpluses are just as murderous, in the last 100 years, every period of budget surplus (two years and more than 1% of GDP, if memory serves) resulted in a major bear market within a year or two, including the bear that started in 2000. That of course is the mirror impact of deficit, deficit stimulate the economy while surpluses soak money from the economy eventually causing retrenchments. During 2000, I have mentioned this historical fact tme and gain to support my generl bearish stance at the time, but no one listened. At the time there was the belief that we may have a 160 B surplus in 2001, and my suggestion was send a check of $1000 to each of the roughly 160 MM tax payers, it took the government a little time, but they ended up doing about half that much (g). The ideal situation would be a balanced budget with minimal surpluses of no more than about .5% to 1% of GDP, IMHO. If it looks as if the surplus will go higher, Congress should have "stand by legislation" that triggers sending some of the money back to tax payers, once a year.

Zeev

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)

[Zeev Hed]

In reedit, back in COCO at36.46.

In edit, this post was directed at jetlag #msg-494724.

Just observation and back of the envelope calculation. The Europeans believe 3% is the max deficit allowed, if memory serves, but I would assume they added a little room for extreme situations. Mind you, budget surpluses are just as murderous, in the last 100 years, every period of budget surplus (two years and more than 1% of GDP, if memory serves) resulted in a major bear market within a year or two, including the bear that started in 2000. That of course is the mirror impact of deficit, deficit stimulate the economy while surpluses soak money from the economy eventually causing retrenchments. During 2000, I have mentioned this historical fact tme and gain to support my generl bearish stance at the time, but no one listened. At the time there was the belief that we may have a 160 B surplus in 2001, and my suggestion was send a check of $1000 to each of the roughly 160 MM tax payers, it took the government a little time, but they ended up doing about half that much (g). The ideal situation would be a balanced budget with minimal surpluses of no more than about .5% to 1% of GDP, IMHO. If it looks as if the surplus will go higher, Congress should have "stand by legislation" that triggers sending some of the money back to tax payers, once a year.

Zeev

[jrintl]

Zeev- Because of 9/11, doncha you think the Fed and gov. stimulated more than they would have (basically, no spending caps anywhere it seems), and that this could/has led to economy hanging up/recovering more than it would have (w/o 9/11). Also, aren't we then borrowing from future, and then will accentuate next "dip" (since Fed/gov. out of bullets..)

Also, wasn't a major factor in the "mild" recession...the absolute unwillingness for the American consumer to pare debt (quite unusual...usually this happens sooner in downturns, and this too should lead to a larger downturn later- sooner or later, consumer will have to increase savings...a lot)

Finally, the U.S. govt. owns a lot of land....in fact, more I believe (% wise)..a lot more...than 20 years ago...how would you factor that into the balance sheet of the U.S. gov? Despite "illegal" accounting by Fed. gov (SSI, etc.), could finances of Fed. gov. be better than some think?

Or do we still need America-thon (meatloaf still available, I believe-g)