Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do you think we can reduce U.S debt?

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:04:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:10:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I'm wondering what you guys think. (remember to make it realistic)

Maybe Obama and his wife should stop buying expensive things for their pleasure.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:06:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay..but in all honesty:
Reduce Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 - $169 billion
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:09:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:10:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I'm wondering what you guys think. (remember to make it realistic)

Cut back on military spending and/or increase inflation.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:29:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:26:56 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Does anybody think demolishing the federal reserve will do anything?

Yes -- it will do something, if that something is "destroying the U.S. economy and waiting for the financial system to implode."
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:37:51 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Could you explain how?

I mean, the integrity of the financial system is rooted in the fact that independent monetary regimes can react to shocks and secure both inflation and output stability; in the absence of that, asset prices will fluctuate rapidly, inflation will soar, confidence in the system will fall, interest rates will move volatility, etc.

Basically, we would devolve to Greece - because the crucial difference between the U.S. and Greece is the ability to borrow in our own currency.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 7:13:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:10:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I'm wondering what you guys think. (remember to make it realistic)

The controlling political ideologies require large governments debt to maintain dominance, therefore employ economists as tools to expand economic control over citizens. Today, all macro-economists are only tools of the state, nothing more. The field of macro-economics is a tool of statist politicians, just as a carpenter uses a hammer. The hammer does not know or care if it is building a storefront for voluntary exchange or a gas chamber to preform mass executions, macro-economists are nothing more than tools..

If reducing US debt is to promote personal freedom and economic liberty. Then, ideas are abundant. First, is to make borrowing painful for the government.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 4:20:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gather a miltary presence into the vacinity of those we "are in debt to" and hand their leader/leaders a note that says,"paid in full. Thank you."
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 4:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Reduce the overly "Roman Empire repeat" on overspending on military and going to all these wars we do not absolutely need to go in. Not unless our very way of life is at threat,which it has not ever been since arguably the time the Japanese bombed us (because obviously Hitler doing what he did and the Japanese, that does threaten out every way of life). At most, spend on basics or follow suit to other European nations. Basics include things for self-defense, like invasions, not things like a plan that has been in the works for years and simply cost billions or millions to work on when it is not even working (F-35).

2. Start exporting items again, not importing. Keep companies here to allow businesses to flourish and job creation to occur.

3. Stop spending all this money to jail people who cross out boarder.

4. Legalize all drugs and tax them as we do pot in a few states. This lowers the money the cartel gets and gives us more money. Develop rules on them like you would anything else.

5. Allow people to drink at least at age 18 if not 16. Other nations do it and are fine. If teens are going to drink, they will drink. Criminalizing it obviously proves nothing but cost to jail them or arrest them.

6. Raise the price of admission to parks by five more dollars and don't give the money to China.

7. Legalize prostitution as a job market like stripping.

8. Use money used for military and wars that go on the card and not paid for to pay for at the minimum, two year college eduction for the public. Getting the citizens an associates degree and even education planning will educate us and not make us this dumb-downed nation we are. This one is in general education reform.

9. Encourage scientific research and use the Government to do scientific research NOT for war so scientist will actually wont to do jobs for the government without fear of another nuke. For example, actually redo the entire Atom Smasher that was going to be built in Texas, which is far larger than the one in Geneva Switzerland, and encourage the U.S. to be a scientific nation once more. We are failing greatly in peer reviewed papers in the world right now.


Conclusion


All and all, this would allow jobs to be created, more, FAR more money for the federal government and states to use, less money on military and war, more exporting (that includes scientific ones such as Germany does with solar panels, so we can compete), and our tax money would be used to maintain the nature of the nation, our infrastructure, and out education to make us not these idiotic people who rank very low in education across the world, and the rest to paying our debt and eventually making more money. Even taking ideas from other nations and even improving on them and making an innovation in the works of economical ideas.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 5:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly, how do people get into debt? They get into debt by spending money that they don't have. USA would do well to remember this when the next federal budget is rolled out.
To stop spending money that they don't have, the federal government must stop playing the savior. There are people in our society who don't want to work, and who make poor decisions. While we want to help everyone, we just can't. In real time life, people live in poverty, and die. Fortunately, in a free country, most people can dig themselves out of their poverty, if they want to work. This we must let them do, on their own. We cannot continue to print paper money that's backed up by nothing, and then giving it to people who don't want to work, or continue to make poor decisions.

We also have to reign in immigration. We have people coming here from other nations, and then living off the system in the form of free health care, food stamps, government housing, and free job training. The federal government who allows mass immigration won't dare raise taxes on us to pay for the illegals, so they print money. Money that they don't have. Either that or they sell government bonds....bonds that will become worthless when the time come to pay the interest on them. If that's not enough, they sell USA lands to big foreign investors for billions of dollars, as well as sell mining rights, right out from underneath the people's feet. This must stop.

Still other monies are thrown at black budgets and black operations. These operations are underground and usually have to do with military or space programs. These programs are under the radar and not talked about in the media. Some of these programs are huge, and cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, dollars that we don't have, dollars that have to be printed and then paid back at a later date.

And then there is the corruption and lack of integrity that goes on in the government when it comes to building roads, schools, bridges, damns, and then huge, huge corruption with military budgets. This corruption is now considered just a part of doing business. It's so extensive that prosecution would take decades, and would bankrupt the justice system.

In general, the only way to reduce debt is through education. The people at the top are not going to stop printing money. However, if the masses are educated as to how important budgets are, and how important it is to live within your means, then we can hold our politicians accountable at the ballot box. Also, when the masses understand the importance of the budget, they will start turning news channels off that cover for the politicians. Those news channels will go out of business. The media that tells the actual truth will be the media that is listened to.
If we start to teach our kids now the importance of budgets and keeping out of debt, in forty years they will be in charge and will work to keep the debt down. Today, it is too late for our generation. We will have to go through more recessions and depressions before people finally start to get this stuff figured out.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 7:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Going into debt is what modern governments do. A gold standard kept that in check for a period of time, but we aren't going back to that anytime soon, primarily because the same government has convinced the masses that gold as money is a relic and that fiat money is necessary in order to properly manage the economy.

If you live in a relatively wealthy country, look at it this way: it's really just like mafia "pizzo" or if you like a wealth-transfer to those in power. They agree not to kill you the way Stalin, Mussolini, Moa, Amin, etc did as long as you go along with the wealth transfer (and don't give any funny looks to those with badges).
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 11:56:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 11:10:29 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I'm wondering what you guys think. (remember to make it realistic)

Stimulus spend and create innovations to increase GDP.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:41:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 4:36:30 PM, Berend wrote:
1. Reduce the overly "Roman Empire repeat" on overspending on military and going to all these wars we do not absolutely need to go in. Not unless our very way of life is at threat,which it has not ever been since arguably the time the Japanese bombed us (because obviously Hitler doing what he did and the Japanese, that does threaten out every way of life). At most, spend on basics or follow suit to other European nations. Basics include things for self-defense, like invasions, not things like a plan that has been in the works for years and simply cost billions or millions to work on when it is not even working (F-35).

no issue with this.


2. Start exporting items again, not importing. Keep companies here to allow businesses to flourish and job creation to occur.

This is written as if the economic system is run by some guy pulling levers and pushing buttons. "Yea, can you crank exports up to 10? We're a little short on jobs". It doesn't work that way. There is nothing wrong with importing those goods that are produced more efficiently elsewhere, unless your goal is to make us all poorer. And "keeping companies here" will also make us poorer since companies moved in order to become more competitive.


3. Stop spending all this money to jail people who cross out boarder.

This is a bit more complicated than you might imagine:

https://mises.org...


4. Legalize all drugs and tax them as we do pot in a few states. This lowers the money the cartel gets and gives us more money. Develop rules on them like you would anything else.

ok, no real issue here. Turns out if you leave people alone, they will figure out how to improve life to the best of their abilities.


5. Allow people to drink at least at age 18 if not 16. Other nations do it and are fine. If teens are going to drink, they will drink. Criminalizing it obviously proves nothing but cost to jail them or arrest them.

meh, I'm not sure you have a good understanding of the cost of this vs the overall cost of government. Personally, I'd leave this type of law up to states, localities or even families.


6. Raise the price of admission to parks by five more dollars and don't give the money to China.

Do you know how a supply & demand curve works? Prices are set to maximize profit. Raise prices = lower sales = decreased profit = the Chinese take over the theme parks because they know how to set prices.


7. Legalize prostitution as a job market like stripping.

sure, but see #5


8. Use money used for military and wars that go on the card and not paid for to pay for at the minimum, two year college eduction for the public. Getting the citizens an associates degree and even education planning will educate us and not make us this dumb-downed nation we are. This one is in general education reform.

unfortunately, there is not as much correlation between education funding and outcomes as most people think. Dumbed down? Is this based on those youtube videos where someone answers that we won the revolutionary war in 1913? Turns out that information, as important as it may be, isn't very relevant toward a degree in, say, micro-biology. Or maybe this is based on progressive propaganda?

Yea, there are issues with education in the U.S.: primarily that there isn't a true market clearing price and there is a lack of innovation caused by sheep-mentality and government intervention. But the innovation issue is changing quickly, forced by technology. However, doesn't it say /something/ about education here when ambitious Asians (just as an example) flock here to get it? Especially considering University is cheaper in China.


9. Encourage scientific research and use the Government to do scientific research NOT for war so scientist will actually wont to do jobs for the government without fear of another nuke. For example, actually redo the entire Atom Smasher that was going to be built in Texas, which is far larger than the one in Geneva Switzerland, and encourage the U.S. to be a scientific nation once more. We are failing greatly in peer reviewed papers in the world right now.


What the heck is your goal here? I thought we were reducing government debt. Sounds like you're increasing it.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:13:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In reality, what matters is the debt-to-GDP ratio: i.e., our ability to *service* that debt. No country will ever actually "pay off" its debt, nor should it, because much of the money is owed to itself -- either to Americans or to government agencies. If you really care about reducing that ratio, there are a few plausible ways:

(1) Increase the denominator -- in other words, grow the economy. That *could* be accomplished through stimulus spending, though in reality it ought to be done by the Fed targeting and stabilizing a target path for nominal GDP (or the price level, but that's subpar). The deficit shrinks endogenously -- higher tax receipts and lower outlays on stabilizers -- both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP.

(2) Eventually, we can shrink it exogenously without too many ramifications (though right now is hardly the time for that). A lot of that can be done via slashing the bloated military budget, but that may involve, over the longer term, stabilizing the trajectory of entitlement spending.

(3) Anything that moves the LRAS curve. That might be stimulus spending on education, research, infrastructure (or the implementation of an Infrastructure Bank, as Larry Summers has suggested and as Hillary Clinton recently adopted into her platform), or tax reform, such as a transition to a progressive consumption tax. That might mean, right now, looking to boost labor force participation and/or reduce involuntarily part-time employed workers (i.e., that comment from Jeb Bush on "working longer hours" that everyone strawmanned without respect for the context in which it was said), and could be induced easily, at least in theory, by overly accommodative monetary policy that pulls back only after wage and price pressures begin to build, contingent of course on the elasticity of labor supply with respect to income. Academic estimates suggest that, roughly, a third or a fourth of the decline in participation can be attributed to cyclical factors, so some of those people might reenter. If we shift the LRAS out, we boost trend RGDP (and NGDP) growth, so the ratio necessarily falls further.

(4) To the former point, there might be something we can do with regulatory reform to push the LRAS out. Without opining on the complex policy trade-offs underlying the ACA, one potential problems with it is that, in principle, it encourages employers to cut back employees' hours. I don't think that's necessarily borne out by the data -- i.e., involuntarily part-time employment should be rising if this were the case, though it's falling, likely due to cyclicality, though it might have fallen *faster* if not for the ACA -- save for anecdotal evidence, like business surveys, collected by several Fed districts. One thing we do know from the ACA, though, is that it reduces labor supply as people voluntarily cutback hours. Some estimates I've seen suggest that this reduces potential output by about 2 percent over the long run. In principle, pulling back some of these policies which decrease the labor stock could boost potential output, and thus boost trend growth.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 4:36:30 PM, Berend wrote:
1. Reduce the overly "Roman Empire repeat" on overspending on military and going to all these wars we do not absolutely need to go in. Not unless our very way of life is at threat,which it has not ever been since arguably the time the Japanese bombed us (because obviously Hitler doing what he did and the Japanese, that does threaten out every way of life). At most, spend on basics or follow suit to other European nations. Basics include things for self-defense, like invasions, not things like a plan that has been in the works for years and simply cost billions or millions to work on when it is not even working (F-35).

I agree with this.

2. Start exporting items again, not importing. Keep companies here to allow businesses to flourish and job creation to occur.

This one is just silly--mercantilism is *not* the answer. I made a post a while back that clears up this misconception that reducing the trade deficit would be ipso facto expansionary: it wouldn't. The methods by which we would accomplish that are either (a) expansionary monetary policy or (b) contractionary fiscal policy. The latter, obviously, reduces the trade deficit because people stop buying imports. The former might *increase* the trade deficit because, in practice, the income effect outweighs the substitution effect.

Not to mention, we can't just "stop importing" in the age of intermediate goods: production costs would soar through the roof. The reasons iphones are so cheap, for instance, is because of outsourced labor on its components. This is a silly idea--the solution is actually to *encourage* free trade, not mercantilist hogwash.

3. Stop spending all this money to jail people who cross out boarder.

I'd go further: I'd open the border and streamline a pathway to citizenship. I agree: faster labor force growth boosts trend growth (longer-term) and current growth.

4. Legalize all drugs and tax them as we do pot in a few states. This lowers the money the cartel gets and gives us more money. Develop rules on them like you would anything else.

I like this idea as well.

5. Allow people to drink at least at age 18 if not 16. Other nations do it and are fine. If teens are going to drink, they will drink. Criminalizing it obviously proves nothing but cost to jail them or arrest them.

I'm not particularly sure that the incarceration costs on teenagers drinking alcohol would necessarily outweigh the costs of drinking, though I support this idea as a matter of principle. It would hardly put a dent in the debt-to-GDP ratio, though.

6. Raise the price of admission to parks by five more dollars and don't give the money to China.

I don't see how this is practical or desirable.

7. Legalize prostitution as a job market like stripping.

I like this idea, but it hasn't much to do with reducing the debt. I can see a few mechanisms by which it might boost *measured* GDP, because surely black-market prostitution exists -- and it would likely expand if legalized -- so this might boost the denominator, sure.

8. Use money used for military and wars that go on the card and not paid for to pay for at the minimum, two year college eduction for the public. Getting the citizens an associates degree and even education planning will educate us and not make us this dumb-downed nation we are. This one is in general education reform.

So, education spending to boost the LRAS. I like this idea, though obviously this would involve a short-run cost for the sake of a long-term gain.

9. Encourage scientific research and use the Government to do scientific research NOT for war so scientist will actually wont to do jobs for the government without fear of another nuke. For example, actually redo the entire Atom Smasher that was going to be built in Texas, which is far larger than the one in Geneva Switzerland, and encourage the U.S. to be a scientific nation once more. We are failing greatly in peer reviewed papers in the world right now.

I like this idea, too, but acknowledge that this will actually *increase* the debt-to-GDP ratio in the very short run.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:16:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:03:14 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/17/2015 4:36:30 PM, Berend wrote:
1. Reduce the overly "Roman Empire repeat" on overspending on military and going to all these wars we do not absolutely need to go in. Not unless our very way of life is at threat,which it has not ever been since arguably the time the Japanese bombed us (because obviously Hitler doing what he did and the Japanese, that does threaten out every way of life). At most, spend on basics or follow suit to other European nations. Basics include things for self-defense, like invasions, not things like a plan that has been in the works for years and simply cost billions or millions to work on when it is not even working (F-35).

I agree with this.

2. Start exporting items again, not importing. Keep companies here to allow businesses to flourish and job creation to occur.

This one is just silly--mercantilism is *not* the answer. I made a post a while back that clears up this misconception that reducing the trade deficit would be ipso facto expansionary: it wouldn't. The methods by which we would accomplish that are either (a) expansionary monetary policy or (b) contractionary fiscal policy. The latter, obviously, reduces the trade deficit because people stop buying imports. The former might *increase* the trade deficit because, in practice, the income effect outweighs the substitution effect.

Not to mention, we can't just "stop importing" in the age of intermediate goods: production costs would soar through the roof. The reasons iphones are so cheap, for instance, is because of outsourced labor on its components. This is a silly idea--the solution is actually to *encourage* free trade, not mercantilist hogwash.

3. Stop spending all this money to jail people who cross out boarder.

I'd go further: I'd open the border and streamline a pathway to citizenship. I agree: faster labor force growth boosts trend growth (longer-term) and current growth.

4. Legalize all drugs and tax them as we do pot in a few states. This lowers the money the cartel gets and gives us more money. Develop rules on them like you would anything else.

I like this idea as well.

5. Allow people to drink at least at age 18 if not 16. Other nations do it and are fine. If teens are going to drink, they will drink. Criminalizing it obviously proves nothing but cost to jail them or arrest them.

I'm not particularly sure that the incarceration costs on teenagers drinking alcohol would necessarily outweigh the costs of drinking, though I support this idea as a matter of principle. It would hardly put a dent in the debt-to-GDP ratio, though.

6. Raise the price of admission to parks by five more dollars and don't give the money to China.

I don't see how this is practical or desirable.

7. Legalize prostitution as a job market like stripping.

I like this idea, but it hasn't much to do with reducing the debt. I can see a few mechanisms by which it might boost *measured* GDP, because surely black-market prostitution exists -- and it would likely expand if legalized -- so this might boost the denominator, sure.

8. Use money used for military and wars that go on the card and not paid for to pay for at the minimum, two year college eduction for the public. Getting the citizens an associates degree and even education planning will educate us and not make us this dumb-downed nation we are. This one is in general education reform.

So, education spending to boost the LRAS. I like this idea, though obviously this would involve a short-run cost for the sake of a long-term gain.

9. Encourage scientific research and use the Government to do scientific research NOT for war so scientist will actually wont to do jobs for the government without fear of another nuke. For example, actually redo the entire Atom Smasher that was going to be built in Texas, which is far larger than the one in Geneva Switzerland, and encourage the U.S. to be a scientific nation once more. We are failing greatly in peer reviewed papers in the world right now.

I like this idea, too, but acknowledge that this will actually *increase* the debt-to-GDP ratio in the very short run.

Good points. I never thought about that on point 2. The cost of admission was because I was told and read that the money we get from parks (like Yellowstone) go to China as a means of repaying our debt. But the money we get overall is like 200 million. Assuming my calculations are right, and the number is steady and all that changes is $5, it wont be too much to make people stop coming, but enough to generate some more. Yellowstone a few months back raised the price $5 more (I lived like next too it over in Montana) then the total revenue would ump from 200 million to about 1 billion.

That is, of course, me taking whatever they already were, keeping the amount of people that came in (total money revived in revenue) and multiplying it by 5. And I am no mathematician so I am sure I screwed that formula up pretty bad. lol

But if the total we got from people was 200 million, adding an additional $5 and getting the same (or more people) should raise the money quite a bait. Since you are getting $5 for every person that came in and already paid the original price.

------

OK, so I learned that Yellowstone makes about 3.5 million and over a year. It cost 25 per vehicle (but they raised the price by $5).

All I'm doing is taking the 2.5 million cars coming in (if each one has two) and timing it by 25. It would raise like 10 extra million if you add the 5 dollars. But I'm sure someone will correct my math.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:28:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:16:59 PM, Berend wrote:
Good points. I never thought about that on point 2. The cost of admission was because I was told and read that the money we get from parks (like Yellowstone) go to China as a means of repaying our debt. But the money we get overall is like 200 million. Assuming my calculations are right, and the number is steady and all that changes is $5, it wont be too much to make people stop coming, but enough to generate some more. Yellowstone a few months back raised the price $5 more (I lived like next too it over in Montana) then the total revenue would ump from 200 million to about 1 billion.

Would you mind sharing where these numbers came from -- or, in particular, how you concluded that demand elasticity is so low that a $5 hike wouldn't douse demand?

I think the benefits of this move are largely overstated, but even if I bought your number at face value, $1 billion is a drop in the bucket. The annual deficit is currently something like $460 billion -- and healthcare costs threaten to raise that further. Granted, I like the idea of investing when servicing costs are low and not worrying so much about current deficits, but I don't see that as a practical move, or even one that would generate your desired benefits when factoring in that people will likely substitute other leisurely activities in lieu of visiting natural parks .

That is, of course, me taking whatever they already were, keeping the amount of people that came in (total money revived in revenue) and multiplying it by 5. And I am no mathematician so I am sure I screwed that formula up pretty bad. lol

It's slightly more complex than that because we would need to factor in demand elasticity. If the demand curve is steep -- relatively inelastic -- then we can conclude that the number of people attending won't change much, so as prices rise, revenue also rises. If the curve is relatively flat, then the change will be magnified, and revenue would likely fall. I think holding the number of attendees constant is in fact oversimplifying the calculation.

Not to mention, the question isn't even so much whether $5 is big or small; it's whether the additional cost of $5 exceeds the perceived benefit of attending a national park, particularly the perceived benefit relative to alternatives.

But if the total we got from people was 200 million, adding an additional $5 and getting the same (or more people) should raise the money quite a bait. Since you are getting $5 for every person that came in and already paid the original price.

I doubt you would end up with more people, but this point I don't understand: would people pay the original price or the $5? Or do they pay the original price and then the $5, assuming none back out?

OK, so I learned that Yellowstone makes about 3.5 million and over a year. It cost 25 per vehicle (but they raised the price by $5).

All I'm doing is taking the 2.5 million cars coming in (if each one has two) and timing it by 25. It would raise like 10 extra million if you add the 5 dollars. But I'm sure someone will correct my math.

Okay, so currently it's $25 per vehicle, and you want to charge $30 per vehicle. If we hold the number of attendees constant, that generates 30 * 2.5, or 75 million. But, again, that assumes that attendees remain constant, which I question.

So, I'm not really sure where $10 million came from -- perhaps your figure is net of costs? -- but even if I bought the $10 million number, which itself is overly optimistic, that wouldn't even put a dent in the debt-to-GDP ratio.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 9:27:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's gross and the $5 is in account to the original. It's the $5 raise, something they already did to Yellowstone. While yes the deficit is high up there, taking in account, if the numbers were true by their showing, then even $10 million in extra revenue is better then the original $65 million.

We're not looking for something to drop it in an instant, but something that is steady and could bring in more money is better then none. And that's only if the state park fair raising the fee per car (at least to Yellowstone) isn't enough to actually change the numbers.

This is also assuming the wide amount of Asian tourist remains the same or happens to grow for whatever reason, which makes up a fairly large part of the tourist at Yellowstone.

1) http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...

2) http://www.cheatsheet.com...

3) http://www.yellowstonegate.com...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:14:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 9:27:50 PM, Berend wrote:
It's gross and the $5 is in account to the original.

But if it's gross, how do you come up with the 10 million figure? I got 75, holding demand constant (which, again, I think is sketchy).

It's the $5 raise, something they already did to Yellowstone. While yes the deficit is high up there, taking in account, if the numbers were true by their showing, then even $10 million in extra revenue is better then the original $65 million.

If that were an effective way to exact revenue, I wouldn't be opposed to it, though again I question the demand elasticity and whether there even *would* be an increase in revenue. If the demand curve is even remotely elastic, revenue could take a severe blow.

We're not looking for something to drop it in an instant, but something that is steady and could bring in more money is better then none. And that's only if the state park fair raising the fee per car (at least to Yellowstone) isn't enough to actually change the numbers.

So there's another fee in addition to the $5 fee? Again, I question the impact this will have on demand.

This is also assuming the wide amount of Asian tourist remains the same or happens to grow for whatever reason, which makes up a fairly large part of the tourist at Yellowstone.

This I agree with -- and tourism could easily change, if only because the global economy (China, Europe, etc.) is in shambles.

1) http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...

2) http://www.cheatsheet.com...

3) http://www.yellowstonegate.com...
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:45:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The $10 million was the rough amount from the original $65 million. The original number I found was $65 million for Yellowstone. The $75 would be the extra $10 million added to annual revenue.

Demand I have no idea. In terms of the Asian community that tend to bombard the place I can only assume an extra $5 wont affect them too much, but with the economy going down the toilet over there in China, I'm not sure. I'd say most of the ones there are Chinese or Korean as I hardly ran into any Japanese, at least that of which I could understand language wise. But, they come in buses so I also have no idea what their each individual or family or couple ticket price change will be at. Likely demand to go to Yellowstone would drop a bit. I'm not sure about the others, but I assume Yellowstone would be easier to get money from due to global popularity, that and the Grand Canyon.

The $1 billion number I pulled from, and likely horrid calculation, from what number I found from the overall collection from all parks in a single year. Assuming they all went up only $5 and the number of customers did not drop, that was what I got. But due to it jumping from $200 million to $1 billion on just every park going up $5 for tickets as compared to their normal level (just raising the prices) I feel that is too much of a grandiose inflation of the revenue. Since mathematics are not my strongest area of study, I feel a little below my normal confidence meter on that number.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:52:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 12:45:40 AM, Berend wrote:
The $10 million was the rough amount from the original $65 million. The original number I found was $65 million for Yellowstone. The $75 would be the extra $10 million added to annual revenue.

Okay, fair enough -- but, again, that presumes that demand is held constant.

Demand I have no idea. In terms of the Asian community that tend to bombard the place I can only assume an extra $5 wont affect them too much, but with the economy going down the toilet over there in China, I'm not sure. I'd say most of the ones there are Chinese or Korean as I hardly ran into any Japanese, at least that of which I could understand language wise. But, they come in buses so I also have no idea what their each individual or family or couple ticket price change will be at. Likely demand to go to Yellowstone would drop a bit. I'm not sure about the others, but I assume Yellowstone would be easier to get money from due to global popularity, that and the Grand Canyon.

I think the demand elasticity is really the crucial element in the equation, though it's a -- at present -- unobservable figure. I think there's a case to be made (which I think you're making), that it's relatively inelastic relative to competitors, which I think is probably fair, though nevertheless *some* people would likely opt to spend their money elsewhere.

The $1 billion number I pulled from, and likely horrid calculation, from what number I found from the overall collection from all parks in a single year. Assuming they all went up only $5 and the number of customers did not drop, that was what I got.

Okay, though obviously I question that assumption.

But due to it jumping from $200 million to $1 billion on just every park going up $5 for tickets as compared to their normal level (just raising the prices) I feel that is too much of a grandiose inflation of the revenue. Since mathematics are not my strongest area of study, I feel a little below my normal confidence meter on that number.

Fair enough, though I don't think mathematics is at play as much as economics, because there are necessarily trade-offs of raising the price, and perhaps you're right that revenue would increase appreciably, though it's still highly uncertain. If we had the numbers on attendance versus prices from Yellowstone, we could probably make a pretty good guess via some statistical methods as to whether or to what degree demand might change, though yeah, a tanking Chinese economy might put a damper on the numbers.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:41:15 PM, ax123man wrote:
This is written as if the economic system is run by some guy pulling levers and pushing buttons. "Yea, can you crank exports up to 10? We're a little short on jobs". It doesn't work that way. There is nothing wrong with importing those goods that are produced more efficiently elsewhere, unless your goal is to make us all poorer. And "keeping companies here" will also make us poorer since companies moved in order to become more competitive.


No and frankly and my point was meant to be a bit simplistic. And I'm not saying that every company should move their companies here instead of hiring offshore where its cheaper, but working a way for companies to be here would create jobs. That was part of the point. The other is that if we export more items, and items that are of decent quality, we that would help the nation. Maybe not so much the deficit.

This is a bit more complicated than you might imagine:


More complicated that people who try to cross out boarders, people who we later plan to deport we should pay to put them in jail, feed them and cloths to wear? How is that at all complicated to not use our tax dollars on people like that? My entire point is on the process of catching them, the process for them in the US (such at jailing them) and then deporting them being a huge waste of money. You're better just tossing them back over the bloody boarder. Not that is matters because as history ever so plainly tells us, they could easily just come back as evidence by the one who killed someone in San Fran. Deported 5 times. The cost to deport him 5 times.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying drop the program all together as there obviously need to be a plan for when people illegally come here and the proper way to handle it without wasting money. Unless it is the most absolute cheapest way, I think dealing with it in another way is better.

https://mises.org...


Do you know how a supply & demand curve works? Prices are set to maximize profit. Raise prices = lower sales = decreased profit = the Chinese take over the theme parks because they know how to set prices.


Yes, and no they are not. They already raised Yellowstone $5. Implementing the other parks to have their fee have a $5 or so (including less than a $5 raise) could hurt the demand for the park or it might not. An automatic semi-minute raise will not utterly kill the admission. It might for the Asian community that ever so tends to visit them on the basis of China's economy currently not doing so well.

Also, that handles the situation for simplistically than it really is. If you raised the fee by $2, your number of people entering might drop, but the people coming in are paying more and that pay might keep the total revenue at the same level or a little more or a little less. This is not as black and white as you make it be. It's not as simple as "Raise it means less people and less people means lower profit". You have to take in all the variables. How many people came in compared to last year? How much more are they paying? Etc.

And we handed them over to China as a means to also give them money since we owe them so much.

sure, but see #5


For a state rights? I don't know. I do not know the number on stripping and how that affects the economy and the deficit in any way for the nation and its money gained form it, but if it did anything, federally legalizing it would also bring in money, as long as you didn't treat every payment via tips like strippers do. But this then turns into a national or states right issue and that's not my point and I don't think, now at least, it was even worth making as a point.

unfortunately, there is not as much correlation between education funding and outcomes as most people think. Dumbed down? Is this based on those youtube videos where someone answers that we won the revolutionary war in 1913? Turns out that information, as important as it may be, isn't very relevant toward a degree in, say, micro-biology. Or maybe this is based on progressive propaganda?


Progressive propaganda? Parroting information from a YouTube? I'm sorry, I'm going to ignore that as if I didn't see that.

Yea, there are issues with education in the U.S.: primarily that there isn't a true market clearing price and there is a lack of innovation caused by sheep-mentality and government intervention. But the innovation issue is changing quickly, forced by technology. However, doesn't it say /something/ about education here when ambitious Asians (just as an example) flock here to get it? Especially considering University is cheaper in China.


Is that just an *example* that you are supporting by the using the Chinese college? Can you show me this being so in compared to their own college in Europe? India? Japan does, I know, that they come here quite a bit for College, but the exact reasons need clarifications backed by sources. I'd be interested in reading about that. The education aspect was more to educate the younger populous and to do better without all the stupid decisions done that their older generation would have done. Like that fact you got people like Chris Christie (Is it bad I think of Krispy Cream when I say his name?) saying he would go after pot and criminalize it when it so evidently is doing better being legal? That's not to bash the Right or anything, but the fact we have people in office and Washington who make these.... sophomoric and stupid plans or actions that just seem unthinkable.

I want the U.S. to work on the education system (and arguably if needed teachers pay better then what they might be if it is too low) to have better educated peers around one another vs people who think the flood in Texas was caused by God for allowing Gay Marriage legal in Ireland. Otherwise I don't see much on the money gained from education unless there is a system via the Universities I do not know that could be done that wont cause the prices to skyrocket even further, preventing people from going to get a degree and remaining in jobs like cleaning toilets.

What the heck is your goal here? I thought we were reducing government debt. Sounds like you're increasing it.

Not in total. Are you kidding me? The overall price in the past 30 years from just war alone dwarfs the scientific field. I'm not saying pop out items here and there, but instead of going to war, you could use just a quoter of that money for the scientific research, which could lead to thinks that might even help us (that I do not know).

You look at the overall price for the F-35 that is being worked on and tell me that alone will be utterly dwarfed by a few scientific research money from time to time.

Overall cost + just the F-35 alone > A few scientific grants.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:55:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 12:52:25 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Okay, fair enough -- but, again, that presumes that demand is held constant.


Yea. So it might not even be remotely a good idea. But they are doing it already to Yellowstone and it would best to just watch the numbers for the next two or so years.

I think the demand elasticity is really the crucial element in the equation, though it's a -- at present -- unobservable figure. I think there's a case to be made (which I think you're making), that it's relatively inelastic relative to competitors, which I think is probably fair, though nevertheless *some* people would likely opt to spend their money elsewhere.


True. That is a good point to be held.

Fair enough, though I don't think mathematics is at play as much as economics, because there are necessarily trade-offs of raising the price, and perhaps you're right that revenue would increase appreciably, though it's still highly uncertain. If we had the numbers on attendance versus prices from Yellowstone, we could probably make a pretty good guess via some statistical methods as to whether or to what degree demand might change, though yeah, a tanking Chinese economy might put a damper on the numbers.

Well I hope to watch Yellowstone and see how it goes there.That's if it doesn't blow in that time.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:56:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 1:55:12 AM, Berend wrote:
At 7/21/2015 12:52:25 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Okay, fair enough -- but, again, that presumes that demand is held constant.


Yea. So it might not even be remotely a good idea. But they are doing it already to Yellowstone and it would best to just watch the numbers for the next two or so years.

Certainly will do -- keep me updated should anything interesting take place.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 6:56:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No and frankly and my point was meant to be a bit simplistic. And I'm not saying that every company should move their companies here instead of hiring offshore where its cheaper, but working a way for companies to be here would create jobs. That was part of the point. The other is that if we export more items, and items that are of decent quality, we that would help the nation. Maybe not so much the deficit.

And jobs = wealth in your simple model? In every case where labor or other resources moves offshore, it's because that resource is cheaper offshore, and cheaper = more efficient = more wealth creation. Can you give me ANY example where, somehow, this isn't true? Or is this just charity?

Why does an increase in exports automatically create wealth? Answer: it doesn't. You are arguing economic points that have been refuted since at least Adam Smith and David Ricardo - long time ago.


This is a bit more complicated than you might imagine:


More complicated that people who try to cross out boarders, people who we later plan to deport we should pay to put them in jail, feed them and cloths to wear? How is that at all complicated to not use our tax dollars on people like that? My entire point is on the process of catching them, the process for them in the US (such at jailing them) and then deporting them being a huge waste of money. You're better just tossing them back over the bloody boarder. Not that is matters because as history ever so plainly tells us, they could easily just come back as evidence by the one who killed someone in San Fran. Deported 5 times. The cost to deport him 5 times.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying drop the program all together as there obviously need to be a plan for when people illegally come here and the proper way to handle it without wasting money. Unless it is the most absolute cheapest way, I think dealing with it in another way is better.

Did you read the link? And understand it? Are you sure the cost of your program is less than keeping immigrants here? Are you sure that the value that immigrants provide is less than the cost of them being here? Read the link: it supports your position, but not in the way you think because you have the same overly simplistic view of this as most Americans.


https://mises.org...



Do you know how a supply & demand curve works? Prices are set to maximize profit. Raise prices = lower sales = decreased profit = the Chinese take over the theme parks because they know how to set prices.


Yes, and no they are not. They already raised Yellowstone $5. Implementing the other parks to have their fee have a $5 or so (including less than a $5 raise) could hurt the demand for the park or it might not. An automatic semi-minute raise will not utterly kill the admission. It might for the Asian community that ever so tends to visit them on the basis of China's economy currently not doing so well.

Also, that handles the situation for simplistically than it really is. If you raised the fee by $2, your number of people entering might drop, but the people coming in are paying more and that pay might keep the total revenue at the same level or a little more or a little less. This is not as black and white as you make it be. It's not as simple as "Raise it means less people and less people means lower profit". You have to take in all the variables. How many people came in compared to last year? How much more are they paying? Etc.

And we handed them over to China as a means to also give them money since we owe them so much.

If they raised the fees 5$ and sales don't go down, then the price was set wrong. No surprise since these parks are subsidized. I'm over here on the east coast paying admission to these parks via my taxes. They should continue to raise admission until sales drop. So NO you DON'T know how supply & demand works.

As far as China holding or debt, how do you know this is bad? Are you sure? Why?



unfortunately, there is not as much correlation between education funding and outcomes as most people think. Dumbed down? Is this based on those youtube videos where someone answers that we won the revolutionary war in 1913? Turns out that information, as important as it may be, isn't very relevant toward a degree in, say, micro-biology. Or maybe this is based on progressive propaganda?


Progressive propaganda? Parroting information from a YouTube? I'm sorry, I'm going to ignore that as if I didn't see that.


Studies do not rate us at the bottom, but in the middle of industrialized nations in sicence and math and higher in civics, reading, etc. But apart from that, here's your "youtube videos":

http://www.alfiekohn.org...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Having said that, I'm not sure the U.S. can do much about the fact that our own success has negatively affected work ethic over the decades. The Chinese and others simply work harder - this is indisputable, backed up consistently by studies. And (my opinion this time) part of the problem is that the poor and disadvantaged are constantly bombarded with propaganda that tells them they've gotten shafted in life and deserve ... err something... in return. This doesn't help the situation.

Regarding education funding vs results, if you think there ISN'T information that questions this correlation you simply aren't looking. And the fact that you are so adamant about this while remaining ignorant is telling.

You hold an awful strong opinion about matters that you clearly have limited knowledge in.
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How do you think we can reduce U.S debt?

I see no hope of this. We cannot even approach balancing the budget on a yearly basis, much less pay off the accumulated debt.

Debts the size of the U.S.s are never paid off. They are repudiated (defaulted upon) or they are hyper-inflated out of existence.

The debt is the result of spending too much. Is there the political will to significantly cut spending - enough to make a substantive difference? I say no.