Skip to main content

Home/ AP/Honors Econ Make Up Discussion Articles/ Group items tagged decade

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
bparksj28

The fiscal cliff may be overblown - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet - 0 views

finance.fortune.cnn.com/...fiscal-cliff-2

cliff term

shared by bparksj28 on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • By not going off the cliff, the CBO estimates that deficits over the next decade would rise by a total of $7.7 trillion (that's "trillion" with a "T"). That would bring the total national debt somewhere to around $24 trillion by 2023 which is equal to 90% of GDP (that's pretty high). If we go off the cliff, don't expect a clean slate, though, as the nation would still have a significant budget deficit equal to 58% of GDP in 2023 due to all the mandatory spending associated with the impeding explosion in costs emanating from Social Security and Medicare.
  • The cuts in spending and the increased taxes will cause thousands of people to lose their jobs pretty much overnight (millions of Americans owe their jobs directly or indirectly to federal government spending). This would push unemployment up across the country from 7.9% to 9.1%. As a result, the CBO projects that real GDP would drop by 0.5% in 2013 after growing by 2.1% in 2012. Real GDP would fall at an annual rate of 2.9% in the first half of next year, tipping the nation into a recession that the CBO figures would be similar in magnitude to the one the nation experienced following the first Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s (for those who didn't live through that, it was bad)
  • Indeed, the fiscal cliff is about as real of a problem as the nation's burgeoning national debt – it's theoretically bad, but it isn't bad enough for Washington to risk making the short term any more economically unpleasant than it has to be. After all, there will be elections for the House in just two short years, so neither side wants to go into that election cycle trying to defend why the government instituted growth killing spending cuts while allowing taxes to shoot up to address some arbitrary debt load that investors continue to fund for next to nothing
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The increase in federal taxes and the reductions in federal spending would cut the budget deficit (the difference between how much revenue the government takes in how much it spends) from $1.1 trillion last year to $641 billion in fiscal 2013, roughly a $500 billion cut. That represents a reduction in the budget deficit (as a percentage share of GDP) not seen since 1969 when the conservative Richard Nixon booted the free-spending Lyndon Johnson out of the White House
  • The increase in federal taxes and the reductions in federal spending would cut the budget deficit (the difference between how much revenue the government takes in how much it spends) from $1.1 trillion last year to $641 billion in fiscal 2013, roughly a $500 billion cut. That represents a reduction in the budget deficit (as a percentage share of GDP) not seen since 1969 when the conservative Richard Nixon booted the free-spending Lyndon Johnson out of the White Hous
  • It is therefore hard for politicians to so brazenly throw the nation into a deep recession to reduce spending when the benefits of acting are so intangible. The fact is that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was political theater in which the Republicans tried to appease "Tea Party" voters – a constituency that has basically been wiped out as the economy has improved. Discussions around raising the marginal tax rate on the top 2% are simply just political fodder. Indeed, multiple studies, including ones by the CBO say that it would raise an insignificant amount of money (a negative for the Democratic view) but would also cause no real harm to the economy (a negative for the Republican view). In the end, if it takes changing the top 2% rate from 35% to 39.6% to end this whole fiscal cliff charade, you can bet it has already been agreed to
  • s it may sound, it is simply irrational for either side to address the deficit in any meaningful way given how cheaply it is for Washington to borrow money. As we have seen in Europe, nations won't swallow the bitter pill of austerity unless the markets force them to
  • As cynical
bparksj28

Mexico and the United States: The rise of Mexico | The Economist - 0 views

www.economist.com/...mportant-neighbour-rise-mexico

Chart

shared by bparksj28 on 26 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • One in ten Mexican citizens lives in the United States. Include their American-born descendants and you have about 33m people (or around a tenth of America’s population)
  • China (with more than 60 mentions in the presidential debates) is by far the biggest source of America’s imports. But wages in Chinese factories have quintupled in the past ten years and the oil price has trebled, inducing manufacturers focused on the American market to set up closer to home. Mexico is already the world’s biggest exporter of flat-screen televisions, BlackBerrys and fridge-freezers, and is climbing up the rankings in cars, aerospace and more. On present trends, by 2018 America will import more from Mexico than from any other country. “Made in China” is giving way to “Hecho en México”.
  • Fewer Mexicans now move to the United States than come back south. America’s fragile economy (with an unemployment rate nearly twice as high as Mexico’s) has dampened arrivals and hastened departures.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • whereas in the 1960s the average Mexican woman had seven children, she now has two. Within a decade Mexico’s fertility rate will fall below America
  • A third of Mexico has a lower murder rate than Louisiana, America’s most murderous state. Nevertheless, the “cartels” will remain strong while two conditions hold. The first is that America imports drugs—on which its citizens spend billions—which it insists must remain illegal
  • Boosting Mexico’s poor productivity means forcing competition on a cosy bunch of private near-monopolies—starting with telecoms, television, cement and food and drink. That means upsetting the tycoons who backed his campaign.
bparksj28

Bulgarian government resigns amid growing protests - Yahoo! News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/tional-protests-073220738.html

government growing protests bulgaria quits

shared by bparksj28 on 20 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Bulgaria's government resigned on Wednesday after violent nationwide protests against high power prices, joining a long list of European administrations felled by austerity during Europe's debt cri
  • raise living standards in the European Union's poorest member,
  • Wage and pension freezes and tax hikes have bitten deep in a country where living standards are less than half the EU average
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The spark for the protests was high electricity bills, after the government raised prices by 13 percent last July. But it quickly spilled over into wider frustration with Borisov's domineering manner and unpredictable decision making.
  • The prime minister made sacrifices in an attempt to cling on, sacking his finance minister, cutting power prices and risking a diplomatic row with the Czech Republic by punishing foreign-owned companies, a move that conflicted with EU norms on protection of investors and due process.
  • Unemployment in the country of 7.3 million is far from the highs hit in the decade after the end of communism but remains at 11.9 percent and average salaries are stuck at around 800 levs ($550) a month.
  • Millions have emigrated in search of a better life, leaving swathes of the country depopulated and little hope for those who remain.
  • The precedent is unlikely to encourage other foreign investors, who already have to navigate complicated bureaucracy and widespread corruption and organized crime if they want to take advantage of Bulgaria's 16-percent flat tax rate.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page