Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenRivet
i see your point and raise you this contribution
Bush had a war in two countries initially backed by the majority of the people and the majority of the congress spanning him 8 years in office to aide him in spending 5 to 6 trillion dollars.
|
No, the costs for Afghanistan were not that high in the first years, nor was the money I mentioned "spend" on the war in Iraq. To prominet parts it was, but the sum I mention also covers follow-up costs for the sopcial community in America: delcine of public fundings in the education sector, the follow-up costs from that for the economy of the forseeable future, additional interests for additional debts and more state bonds, etc.
Quote:
Obama is trying to wind these things down and still has managed to spend 1/5th or 1/6th of the previous administration's money in less than 2 years.
at this rate - god forbid America endures 2 terms of Obama... he will have outspent the previous administration by about 3 or 4 trillion dollars by the conclusion of his second term
|
That would imply there is a linear relation between office time and spendings, but it is not that simple. There is no second 1 trillion social insurrance program coming, nor will over the next (1 or 3) 2-year-periods exactly as much money being spend on bailing out banks as was spend in the first 2-year period. On the other hand, the Fed is helpless, the politicians clueless, they try to artificially devalue the dollar and raising inflation, and I have no doubt that if majpor buddies (=companies fail in the future), they will be bailed out again indeed. I just complain about the linear relation you imply here.
That they now try to laucnh a trade war especially with China, is hardly good advise. It is campaign rumble for November, I assume. China has already started before that announcement to reorientate it's trading focus from foreign exports towards supplying the internal market demand. They are reducing their interest to export to the Us that way, and that also means they have less and lesser interest to artifically support the dollar by buying bonds.
As I see it, they are man euvering themsleves into finacial striking range - considering their tremendous dollar reserves of unofficially almost 3 trillion, officially 1.5 trillion. In August, officials of the Chinese bank for the first time ever voiced open threats that China could use these reserves as a weapon to politically and economicall crush the US by liquidising them in huge quantities and thus finishing off the dollar currency, with the most likely consequnces of the US economy totally collapsing. In that context, Clinton warned of America's vulnerability due to the fact that 44% of it's debts is controlled by foreign powers (
China threatens nuclear option of dollar sales).
In such a weak position, you do not try to launch a trade war, no matter the Yuan's value. Pithy words don't win conflicts, especially not against the Chinese. They will not feel intimidated, but will calmly weigh their strengths versus their weaknesses, and then decide, no matter the US' desires. If Obama lets this thing really escalate, it could dramatically backfire on the US.