Wargamer Home - Forum Home
Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: Past & Future Economic Crises

    Page 1 of 2 :

All Forums : [GENERAL] : General Discussion : Current Events > Past & Future Economic Crises
28 DEC 2011 at 10:53am

airboy_1

Hoplite
Hoplite



Posts : 72
Joined: 29 JAN 2005
Location: US

Status : Offline
If you have a big economic crisis, it is important to determine what caused it in order to repeat the disaster. Common sense for any thinking person.

The last big crisis was caused by a tremendous increase in household debt and a residential housing real estate bubble. I have sent graphs in the past on household debt. Tons of credit was extended to lots of people.

The second big problem was too many bad housing loans. This was caused by multiple factors. First, underwriting standards went to hell and lots of bad loans were written in the private sector. Second, the Federal Government underwrote a lot of the bad debt and also pushed lenders to issue loans to people with bad credit.

Data on this can be found at: http://american.com/archive/2011/dec...nancial-crisis Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were alarmed by their “loss of market share” and issued and guaranteed a staggering amount of subprime housing loans. This was worst during the last couple of years of the housing mania. Basically, the government saw a mostly private sector problem (bad housing loans) and then entered the market and roughly doubled the problem.

Now, this is not a pure republican/democrat breakdown. Carter started the madness. Clinton upped the ante a great deal. Bush II made it a lot worse (before trying to fix it right before the crash).

I think that Bush II will go down as making idiotic foreign policy & domestic policy decisions.

On future economic crises – it is right there in front of you. The Federal Government continues to borrow around $0.43 for every $1 in spending. The Republican Congress prevented any new huge government programs from being launched, but in 2011 the Federal Government took on another $1 trillion in debt and the Federal Reserve took on an additional $1.5 trillion in “loans.” This is the big economic story in the US. Obama was thwarted from launching more huge government programs, but almost nothing was done to halt the current spending crisis. Remember this, the US Federal Government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011.

Liberals are (stupidly) arguing that all of the government debt does not matter because interest rates are currently so low. Well, that has an element of truth. US government bond interest rates are very low. But the amount of debt burden has increased substantially. US government debt has also gone to shorter term debt (10 year bonds instead of 30 year bonds) over the last decade. One last thing, if investors lose confidence that the debt will be covered interest rates will spike quickly. We are already seeing how fast that can occur in Europe. It can happen here also. Sovereign debt crises tend to occur pretty suddenly and then drag on for years.

US Government debt levels are now at the point the US was in 1945. This is a remarkable achievement. Obama, you have truly made history.

My background. Ph.D. in business with a minor in econometrics (the math behind economics). I teach real estate at a research university, talk to real estate people and look at a lot of real estate data. I also have been a real estate developer for 25 years. I'm one of the few people who has a lot of money/investments in real property and also teaches it. Most professors have no real business experience. Most business people don't understand math and the macroeconomic data. I can do both (at least to some extent).

The Old Guard


Profile Search


28 DEC 2011 at 12:27pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Inflation can be a general rise in prices or an asset bubble.  Were not the household debt and housing bubble symptoms of the FED's loose money policy rather than the disease itself?  What Bush policy exacerbated home lending?  True enough he was slow to stem the tide but every attempt starting in 2001 with Sens. Ashby, Cain and Bush was met and defeated with charges of racism led by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters.  Obama is on video record of accusing Bush II of running the national debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion in his 8 years in office, yet today since Obama has been in office the debt stands at 15 trillion.  That's 6 trillion in 3 years!  There's a lot of selective memory concerning this economic downturn but that's to be expected since the disinformation campaign on the great depression is still in force nearly 80 years later.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Last edited by ActionJack : 28 DEC 2011 12:38pm
Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 1:05pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

On future economic crises – it is right there in front of you. The Federal Government continues to borrow around $0.43 for every $1 in spending. The Republican Congress prevented any new huge government programs from being launched, but in 2011 the Federal Government took on another $1 trillion in debt and the Federal Reserve took on an additional $1.5 trillion in “loans.” This is the big economic story in the US. Obama was thwarted from launching more huge government programs, but almost nothing was done to halt the current spending crisis. Remember this, the US Federal Government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011.

Liberals are (stupidly) arguing that all of the government debt does not matter because interest rates are currently so low. Well, that has an element of truth. US government bond interest rates are very low. But the amount of debt burden has increased substantially. US government debt has also gone to shorter term debt (10 year bonds instead of 30 year bonds) over the last decade. One last thing, if investors lose confidence that the debt will be covered interest rates will spike quickly. We are already seeing how fast that can occur in Europe. It can happen here also. Sovereign debt crises tend to occur pretty suddenly and then drag on for years.

 

There is no current spending crisis -- the US "debt" problem is a long-term problem and it is, in essence, a health care spending problem.  Most of the current deficits are due to the tanking of the economy (lower GDP=lower tax revenue), the automatic stabilizers (more unemployed = more unemployment, more poor people = more Medicaid, etc); and tax cuts (extending the Bush tax cuts and the pay roll tax = less revenue).  The stimulus spending has pretty much been exhuasted. When the economy recovers, so will the immediate fiscal picture.  Of course, if the deficit were only $200 billion today we'd still have the long-term health care train wreck.  If you want a solution to the long-term debt problem, don't look too closely at social security, defense, welfare, roads, education or infrastructure -- it's almost entirely health care costs.  Now, some might use that as a cudgel to go after other programs they don't like, but the problem is health care costs.

 

I'm not sure quite what your argument on debt maturity is.  The length of terms of US debt has increased in the last few years (since 2006).  Indeed, a decade ago, the US did not issue 30 year bonds.  From 2001-2006 the US stopped issuing the 30 year bond and has taken to doing it again -- hence the RISE in the maturity of US debt.  And with low rates, that is a good thing -- with negative returns out to 10 years, that means you actually will need LOWER tax revenues in 10 years to pay off the debt than if you had to pay it now.

 

Finally, the European sovereign debt crisis is a combination of the problems of the design of the eurozone and a current account crisis.  Spain, for example, had a very small deficit on the eve of the crisis and even now has a much lower debt load than Germany (as does Ireland).  The problems of Greece, which are serious, are often seen as being the same as Portugal, Ireland, Spain and (perhaps) Italy.  But they are actually completely different.  The underlying European problem is they have a common European central bank and monetary system but not a common fiscal system.   To take one example, if banks in NY fail, the US govt bails them out, not NY State.  If Irish banks fail, the Irish govt bails them out, not the EU.  Do you think NY might have experienced some fiscal problems if they were on the hook for TARP instead of the federal govt (ie the nation as a whole)?  In addition, the US (and UK, Sweden, Japan, etc) can borrow in a currency they have 100% control over.  Not so in the Euro-zone.  And the Federal Reserve and Bank of England and Bank of Japan actually act like central banks and perform a lender-of-last-resort role, which so far the European Central Bank has been reluctant to do, to say the least 

which is incredible, BTW).

 

 



Last edited by medck : 28 DEC 2011 1:08pm
Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 4:01pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

It seems that social security is nearly equal to the Medicare and Medicaid spending.

 

 


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 4:30pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

that's until 2020.  Social Security, as you know, has a dedicated income stream and a huge trust fund that in combination will pay 100% of its bills well into the 2030s.  What is the dedicated income stream of defense discretionary spending?  The long-term costs come after 2020 in any event.



Last edited by medck : 28 DEC 2011 4:31pm
Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 4:42pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

that's until 2020.  Social Security, as you know, has a dedicated income stream and a huge trust fund that in combination will pay 100% of its bills well into the 2030s.  What is the dedicated income stream of defense discretionary spending?  The long-term costs come after 2020 in any event.

I know that social security pays out more than it takes in; that there is nothing but debt for all previous social security contributions beyond expenditures.  Every dime spent on social security today comes out of government revenue and government borrowing.  Frankly, it's more accurate to say it all comes from government borrowing.  I think that it is more than just health care costs driving our debt growth although with Obamacare it may indeed dwarf all others including social security liabilities.  I would not be surprised.  In any event we should expect subsidies to result in cost increases at a rate greater than inflation.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 4:48pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

 

 

You can see where the long-term cost growth is; ObamaCare put a dent in the curve, but it is still horrific.  Every dime spent on social security always comes from govt revenue and borrowing.  Just like all govt spending.  It just so happens SS has a dedicated income stream that even if the trust fund disappeared would cover about 80% of obligations.



Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 5:27pm

OJsDad

Commander
Commander



Posts : 1440
Joined: 5 AUG 2004
Location: US, Ohio

Status : Offline

The biggest problem is that all goverment spending, (local, state, federal) accounts for over 46.6% of GDP, while revenues only account for 30.9% of GDP.  You cannot have that large of a gap between spending and revenue.  I agree that as the economy improves, this will get better, but not by much.  One of the biggest problems has been too many promises of benefits but not any truth to how much it will really cost.

 

I remember during the Clinton/Republician budget debates, Limbaugh pointed out that not a single penny needed to be cut from Federal spending, the government budget just needed to be frozen or grown at less than the growth in GDP, and the bugdget would balance itself.  Today, with a what, $1.5 T deficit, there needs to be major budget cuts.  Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest budget items, followed by SS, Defense, Welfare, Interest on Debt and Federal Pensions.  The top four items account for $2.659 T so far.  Even making a 10% accross the board cut in these problems will not fix the problem. 

 

This letter to the editor in the local paper today sums up one of the biggest problems, people expecting these programs to be there forever.  I understand the case for means testing recepients and helping those that need help.  But how do  you keep this from punishing those that do the right thing and rewarding those you make all the wrong choices.

 

TIME TO REPLACE THEM ALL

That was some fuss they made about giving away our Social Security. Last year they gave us no increase at all and in 2012 they will give me a 41-cent increase.

We should vote a complete change in our stupid Washington politicians. They should be ashamed of themselves. What a mess they made of that. All of them want to destroy our Social Security system.

Let's vote all of them out before they do, from the president on down.

Herbert Adams Bucyrus

 


Matthew 25:14-30.  Jesus tells that it is not sufficient merely to maintain things as they are.  Those who await should make good use of the gifts that God has provided them.


Profile Search
28 DEC 2011 at 5:30pm

OJsDad

Commander
Commander



Posts : 1440
Joined: 5 AUG 2004
Location: US, Ohio

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

The second big problem was too many bad housing loans. This was caused by multiple factors. First, underwriting standards went to hell and lots of bad loans were written in the private sector. Second, the Federal Government underwrote a lot of the bad debt and also pushed lenders to issue loans to people with bad credit.

 

Airboy,

 

  My wife works in a small local bank.  One problem she pointed out was people that can afford a housing loan, but walking away because they are upside down on their loan.  Is there any data to show how much of an impact this problem is on the housing markent.


Matthew 25:14-30.  Jesus tells that it is not sufficient merely to maintain things as they are.  Those who await should make good use of the gifts that God has provided them.


Profile Search
30 DEC 2011 at 4:15am

ralfy

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 925
Joined: 15 MAY 2007

Status : Offline

When you have a global market of $600 trillion to over a quadrillion dollars in unregulated derivatives, and likely the largest component of total money supply, then don't expect a problem-free future. The same goes when you have an economy with banks exposed to over $370 trillion in unregulated derivatives, government future liabilities of between $77 trillion and $200 trillion, debt across the board (government, corporations, households) with personal debt at one point even hitting 150 pct of disposable income, around 70 pct of economic activity connected to consumer spending, significant portions of consumer spending backed by home prices, much of employment in the service industry, probably around 40 pct of war costs funded through foreign loans and passed on to the sheeple, deficits driven by tax cuts and war costs, generally 40 years of casino capitalism and trade deficits, including three decades of voodoo economics, and the country led by what are essentially Reagan clones serving Wall Street.

 


I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.--Albert Einstein

Profile Search
30 DEC 2011 at 11:27am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By ralfy

When you have a global market of $600 trillion to over a quadrillion dollars in unregulated derivatives, and likely the largest component of total money supply, then don't expect a problem-free future. The same goes when you have an economy with banks exposed to over $370 trillion in unregulated derivatives, government future liabilities of between $77 trillion and $200 trillion, debt across the board (government, corporations, households) with personal debt at one point even hitting 150 pct of disposable income, around 70 pct of economic activity connected to consumer spending, significant portions of consumer spending backed by home prices, much of employment in the service industry, probably around 40 pct of war costs funded through foreign loans and passed on to the sheeple, deficits driven by tax cuts and war costs, generally 40 years of casino capitalism and trade deficits, including three decades of voodoo economics, and the country led by what are essentially Reagan clones serving Wall Street.

 

What lack of regulation of derivatives is the problem?  Why do government future liabilities have anything to do with this particular lack of regulation of derivatives?  I see a lot of undefined jargon like casino capitalism, trade deficits, voodoo economics designed to strike an emotional chord but no specific examples of deficiencies.  It seems more spouting of marxist propaganda with no real understanding of what any of it means.  I think a New Year's resolution is in order here.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search


30 DEC 2011 at 5:04pm

airboy_1

Hoplite
Hoplite



Posts : 72
Joined: 29 JAN 2005
Location: US

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

that's until 2020.  Social Security, as you know, has a dedicated income stream and a huge trust fund that in combination will pay 100% of its bills well into the 2030s.  What is the dedicated income stream of defense discretionary spending?  The long-term costs come after 2020 in any event.

 

This is not accurate.  Social Security/Medicare are now running a net loss.  There is no "trust fund."  The Feds spent every dollar that came in and issued "special bonds" to themselves.  The Feds hold no actual assets.  To pay off the "special bonds" the US would either have to issue more debt or raise taxes, or spend less elsewhere.

 

Obama has also screwed up the "dedicated income stream" by the payroll tax cuts.  These are cuts in social security/medicare paid by ordinary workers. 

 

One last proof.  If you recall during the near government shutdown this summer that Obama said that if the crisis was not resolved by raising the debt ceiling that all of the social security checks would not go out.  Obama was right.  There is no trust fund.  Without taking on even more debt the social security checks would have started bouncing.


The Old Guard


Profile Search
30 DEC 2011 at 5:13pm

airboy_1

Hoplite
Hoplite



Posts : 72
Joined: 29 JAN 2005
Location: US

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By OJsDad

Originally Posted By airboy

The second big problem was too many bad housing loans. This was caused by multiple factors. First, underwriting standards went to hell and lots of bad loans were written in the private sector. Second, the Federal Government underwrote a lot of the bad debt and also pushed lenders to issue loans to people with bad credit.

 

Airboy,

 

  My wife works in a small local bank.  One problem she pointed out was people that can afford a housing loan, but walking away because they are upside down on their loan.  Is there any data to show how much of an impact this problem is on the housing markent.

 

There are several different categories of borrowers. 

Group 1 = homeowners without a mortgage. 

Group 2 = first time buyers without a mortgage

Group 3 = people with mortgage who are not "upside down"

Group 4 = people with upside down mortgages.

 

For all 4 groups, you need 20% down and almost perfect credit to get a mortgage loan today.  If you don't have that much capital, you simply can't buy.  An example shows how this works.  Suppose you want to buy a relatively inexpensive $100,000 home.  You would need a credit score of 700+, about $25,000 in cash (20% down & closing costs), and an income stream to make mortgage payments.  This standard eliminates large numbers of new home buyers.

 

If you own an upside down mortgage, then you have to get to an 80% loan to value ratio.  This means coming up with even more cash to close.  Here is an example.  Suppose you bought a home for $125,000 and it currently has a value of $100,000.  You want to refinance or sell the home to buy another.  To refinance you would need $45,000 plus closing costs to get the new loan.  To sell the home you would need to take $25,000 to closing to end the mortgage.

 

Right now, short sales & foreclosures are around 50% of purchases.

 

There is a lot of data released on this from the US government including the Federal Reserve.


The Old Guard


Profile Search
30 DEC 2011 at 5:13pm

airboy_1

Hoplite
Hoplite



Posts : 72
Joined: 29 JAN 2005
Location: US

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By OJsDad

Originally Posted By airboy

The second big problem was too many bad housing loans. This was caused by multiple factors. First, underwriting standards went to hell and lots of bad loans were written in the private sector. Second, the Federal Government underwrote a lot of the bad debt and also pushed lenders to issue loans to people with bad credit.

 

Airboy,

 

  My wife works in a small local bank.  One problem she pointed out was people that can afford a housing loan, but walking away because they are upside down on their loan.  Is there any data to show how much of an impact this problem is on the housing markent.

 

There are several different categories of borrowers. 

Group 1 = homeowners without a mortgage. 

Group 2 = first time buyers without a mortgage

Group 3 = people with mortgage who are not "upside down"

Group 4 = people with upside down mortgages.

 

For all 4 groups, you need 20% down and almost perfect credit to get a mortgage loan today.  If you don't have that much capital, you simply can't buy.  An example shows how this works.  Suppose you want to buy a relatively inexpensive $100,000 home.  You would need a credit score of 700+, about $25,000 in cash (20% down & closing costs), and an income stream to make mortgage payments.  This standard eliminates large numbers of new home buyers.

 

If you own an upside down mortgage, then you have to get to an 80% loan to value ratio.  This means coming up with even more cash to close.  Here is an example.  Suppose you bought a home for $125,000 and it currently has a value of $100,000.  You want to refinance or sell the home to buy another.  To refinance you would need $45,000 plus closing costs to get the new loan.  To sell the home you would need to take $25,000 to closing to end the mortgage.

 

Right now, short sales & foreclosures are around 50% of purchases.

 

There is a lot of data released on this from the US government including the Federal Reserve.


The Old Guard


Profile Search
30 DEC 2011 at 10:56pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

Originally Posted By medck

that's until 2020.  Social Security, as you know, has a dedicated income stream and a huge trust fund that in combination will pay 100% of its bills well into the 2030s.  What is the dedicated income stream of defense discretionary spending?  The long-term costs come after 2020 in any event.

 

This is not accurate.  Social Security/Medicare are now running a net loss.  There is no "trust fund."  The Feds spent every dollar that came in and issued "special bonds" to themselves.  The Feds hold no actual assets.  To pay off the "special bonds" the US would either have to issue more debt or raise taxes, or spend less elsewhere.

 

Obama has also screwed up the "dedicated income stream" by the payroll tax cuts.  These are cuts in social security/medicare paid by ordinary workers. 

 

One last proof.  If you recall during the near government shutdown this summer that Obama said that if the crisis was not resolved by raising the debt ceiling that all of the social security checks would not go out.  Obama was right.  There is no trust fund.  Without taking on even more debt the social security checks would have started bouncing.

To be fair, it was my understanding that there was enough revenue this summer coming in to pay the military, retirees, and social security recipients; the rest of the government expenditures, to include salaries, would have to be borrowed.  In any event, why has not the fact that this 'payroll tax' bankrolls the social security retirement not been more discussed?  How has this been morphed into a middle class tax cut and how can anyone on either side of the aisle let this falsehood linger?


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 7:41am

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

This is not accurate.  Social Security/Medicare are now running a net loss.  There is no "trust fund."  The Feds spent every dollar that came in and issued "special bonds" to themselves.  The Feds hold no actual assets.  To pay off the "special bonds" the US would either have to issue more debt or raise taxes, or spend less elsewhere.

 

Obama has also screwed up the "dedicated income stream" by the payroll tax cuts.  These are cuts in social security/medicare paid by ordinary workers. 

 

One last proof.  If you recall during the near government shutdown this summer that Obama said that if the crisis was not resolved by raising the debt ceiling that all of the social security checks would not go out.  Obama was right.  There is no trust fund.  Without taking on even more debt the social security checks would have started bouncing.

 

1. If by "net loss" you mean the trust fund is growing and scheduled to grow until 2020.  At the moment, Social Security had $781 billion in revenue ($664 billion in taxes, $117 billion in interest) against $713 billion in expenditures.  This gain of $68 billion has increased the turst fund to $2.6 trillion.  It should rise to a peak of around $3.6 trillion by 2020.  For the next decade, Social Security can just use the interest and its tax revenue to fund obligations.

 

Keep in mind, that even when the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security can pay about 75% of its obligations from the payroll tax (very minor tweaks would put it in balance forever, like extending the taxes to cover wages over $110,000 which currently have 0% social security tax).

 

2.  I agree with you about the dedicated income stream.  The temporary measure calls for the payment from the general revenue of the social security obligation, but that strikes me as a wedge if it becomes a long-term practice.  The economic logic is clear (lower costs of labor to employers in order to encourage employment), but the political logic less so.

 

3. Obama was making a political threat.  With no debt ceiling increase, the govt would have had to decide which obligations to keep and which not to.  It gets its money in a big lump around April/May and a trickle the rest of the year and generally evens it out with borrowing.  With Social Security, Defense and Medicare/Medicaid all at 20-25% of the budget, any prioritizing would have to have hit one or more of those.  Social Security is the one that put the most pressure on the other party -- besides, it is pretty much an all-or-nothing program, you can't decide to just pay some people and not others like you can with Defense Programs or Transport projects -- people expect their payment on the first of the month.  The debt ceiling debacle was a stunt either way, so I doubt it "proves" anything.  

 

If your "there is no trust fund" argument is true, then the whole premise of this thread falls -- a good portion of the govt debt is owed to govt trust funds (social security, Medicare, military pensions, civil service pensions, highways, etc).  Together they account for just under one-third of public debt and if they "don't exist" neither does around a third of our public debt (and corresponding interest).  Also, if you're making that argument , then social security can't be running a "loss" any more than the Defense Department does since all the money comes from a giant pool of non-dedicated revenue.  The funds could come from an excise tax on Snickers bars, the source is immaterial.

 

However, if there is a dedicated income stream and a real trust fund, then Social Security can run a "profit" (up to 2020) and a "loss" (after 2020) and perhaps run down its assets by the end of the 2030s.

 

What has been going on is that the rest of the govt has been borrowing from social security for years.  In a few years, the position will be reversed and Social Security will be cashing in its bonds.  The govt pays interests on its bonds as it has been and can set the rest of its spending as well.  For what its worth, the rest of the spending is pretty much in balance -- as I noted earlier, the long-term budget problem is health care costs.



Last edited by medck : 31 DEC 2011 7:59am
Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 10:12am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By airboy

This is not accurate.  Social Security/Medicare are now running a net loss.  There is no "trust fund."  The Feds spent every dollar that came in and issued "special bonds" to themselves.  The Feds hold no actual assets.  To pay off the "special bonds" the US would either have to issue more debt or raise taxes, or spend less elsewhere.

 

Obama has also screwed up the "dedicated income stream" by the payroll tax cuts.  These are cuts in social security/medicare paid by ordinary workers. 

 

One last proof.  If you recall during the near government shutdown this summer that Obama said that if the crisis was not resolved by raising the debt ceiling that all of the social security checks would not go out.  Obama was right.  There is no trust fund.  Without taking on even more debt the social security checks would have started bouncing.

 

1. If by "net loss" you mean the trust fund is growing and scheduled to grow until 2020.  At the moment, Social Security had $781 billion in revenue ($664 billion in taxes, $117 billion in interest) against $713 billion in expenditures.  This gain of $68 billion has increased the turst fund to $2.6 trillion.  It should rise to a peak of around $3.6 trillion by 2020.  For the next decade, Social Security can just use the interest and its tax revenue to fund obligations.

 

Keep in mind, that even when the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security can pay about 75% of its obligations from the payroll tax (very minor tweaks would put it in balance forever, like extending the taxes to cover wages over $110,000 which currently have 0% social security tax).

 

2.  I agree with you about the dedicated income stream.  The temporary measure calls for the payment from the general revenue of the social security obligation, but that strikes me as a wedge if it becomes a long-term practice.  The economic logic is clear (lower costs of labor to employers in order to encourage employment), but the political logic less so.

 

3. Obama was making a political threat.  With no debt ceiling increase, the govt would have had to decide which obligations to keep and which not to.  It gets its money in a big lump around April/May and a trickle the rest of the year and generally evens it out with borrowing.  With Social Security, Defense and Medicare/Medicaid all at 20-25% of the budget, any prioritizing would have to have hit one or more of those.  Social Security is the one that put the most pressure on the other party -- besides, it is pretty much an all-or-nothing program, you can't decide to just pay some people and not others like you can with Defense Programs or Transport projects -- people expect their payment on the first of the month.  The debt ceiling debacle was a stunt either way, so I doubt it "proves" anything.  

 

If your "there is no trust fund" argument is true, then the whole premise of this thread falls -- a good portion of the govt debt is owed to govt trust funds (social security, Medicare, military pensions, civil service pensions, highways, etc).  Together they account for just under one-third of public debt and if they "don't exist" neither does around a third of our public debt (and corresponding interest).  Also, if you're making that argument , then social security can't be running a "loss" any more than the Defense Department does since all the money comes from a giant pool of non-dedicated revenue.  The funds could come from an excise tax on Snickers bars, the source is immaterial.

 

However, if there is a dedicated income stream and a real trust fund, then Social Security can run a "profit" (up to 2020) and a "loss" (after 2020) and perhaps run down its assets by the end of the 2030s.

 

What has been going on is that the rest of the govt has been borrowing from social security for years.  In a few years, the position will be reversed and Social Security will be cashing in its bonds.  The govt pays interests on its bonds as it has been and can set the rest of its spending as well.  For what its worth, the rest of the spending is pretty much in balance -- as I noted earlier, the long-term budget problem is health care costs.

117 billion in interest?????????? Sheesh!


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 11:19am

airboy_1

Hoplite
Hoplite



Posts : 72
Joined: 29 JAN 2005
Location: US

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By airboy

This is not accurate.  Social Security/Medicare are now running a net loss.  There is no "trust fund."  The Feds spent every dollar that came in and issued "special bonds" to themselves.  The Feds hold no actual assets.  To pay off the "special bonds" the US would either have to issue more debt or raise taxes, or spend less elsewhere.

 

Obama has also screwed up the "dedicated income stream" by the payroll tax cuts.  These are cuts in social security/medicare paid by ordinary workers. 

 

One last proof.  If you recall during the near government shutdown this summer that Obama said that if the crisis was not resolved by raising the debt ceiling that all of the social security checks would not go out.  Obama was right.  There is no trust fund.  Without taking on even more debt the social security checks would have started bouncing.

 

1. If by "net loss" you mean the trust fund is growing and scheduled to grow until 2020.  At the moment, Social Security had $781 billion in revenue ($664 billion in taxes, $117 billion in interest) against $713 billion in expenditures.  This gain of $68 billion has increased the turst fund to $2.6 trillion.  It should rise to a peak of around $3.6 trillion by 2020.  For the next decade, Social Security can just use the interest and its tax revenue to fund obligations.

 

Keep in mind, that even when the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security can pay about 75% of its obligations from the payroll tax (very minor tweaks would put it in balance forever, like extending the taxes to cover wages over $110,000 which currently have 0% social security tax).

 

2.  I agree with you about the dedicated income stream.  The temporary measure calls for the payment from the general revenue of the social security obligation, but that strikes me as a wedge if it becomes a long-term practice.  The economic logic is clear (lower costs of labor to employers in order to encourage employment), but the political logic less so.

 

3. Obama was making a political threat.  With no debt ceiling increase, the govt would have had to decide which obligations to keep and which not to.  It gets its money in a big lump around April/May and a trickle the rest of the year and generally evens it out with borrowing.  With Social Security, Defense and Medicare/Medicaid all at 20-25% of the budget, any prioritizing would have to have hit one or more of those.  Social Security is the one that put the most pressure on the other party -- besides, it is pretty much an all-or-nothing program, you can't decide to just pay some people and not others like you can with Defense Programs or Transport projects -- people expect their payment on the first of the month.  The debt ceiling debacle was a stunt either way, so I doubt it "proves" anything.  

 

If your "there is no trust fund" argument is true, then the whole premise of this thread falls -- a good portion of the govt debt is owed to govt trust funds (social security, Medicare, military pensions, civil service pensions, highways, etc).  Together they account for just under one-third of public debt and if they "don't exist" neither does around a third of our public debt (and corresponding interest).  Also, if you're making that argument , then social security can't be running a "loss" any more than the Defense Department does since all the money comes from a giant pool of non-dedicated revenue.  The funds could come from an excise tax on Snickers bars, the source is immaterial.

 

However, if there is a dedicated income stream and a real trust fund, then Social Security can run a "profit" (up to 2020) and a "loss" (after 2020) and perhaps run down its assets by the end of the 2030s.

 

What has been going on is that the rest of the govt has been borrowing from social security for years.  In a few years, the position will be reversed and Social Security will be cashing in its bonds.  The govt pays interests on its bonds as it has been and can set the rest of its spending as well.  For what its worth, the rest of the spending is pretty much in balance -- as I noted earlier, the long-term budget problem is health care costs.

 

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the problem.

 

The government has promised a certain level of benefits in various programs.  The biggest are social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

The government took in more taxes than necessary to pay for the program for medicare & social security for a while.  Medicare has run a deficit for many years.  Social security is now in a deficit.

 

The government has NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  The "bonds" are IOUs for money already spent. 

 

Let me give you a simple analogy.  Medck wants to retire someday.  Medck decides to start saving for his retirement in advance.  So far, so good.

But Medck also wants a new car, computer, and wargames.  He spends all of his retirement cash - but writes himself an "IOU" for the funds taken.  Medck also promises to pay himself interest for the money he has already spent on other things.  Medck has no retirement fund, no savings, and if he is also running up his credit card in addition to spending all of his retirement savings has crushing debt.

 

And the premise of this thread has not collapsed.  The government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011 (counting additional loans by the Federal Reserve).  This is a crisis.  You may not realize it, but you will when the piper has to be paid.

 

The government can cut spending, raise taxes or both.  But funding all of the current promises plus paying interest on all of the accumulated debt when the interest rates rise because our creditors start to have doubts will cause immense pain.  The current promises cannot be paid without ruinous rates of taxation.


The Old Guard


Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 11:28am

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

...

 

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the problem.

 

The government has promised a certain level of benefits in various programs.  The biggest are social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

The government took in more taxes than necessary to pay for the program for medicare & social security for a while.  Medicare has run a deficit for many years.  Social security is now in a deficit.

 

The government has NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  The "bonds" are IOUs for money already spent. 

 

Let me give you a simple analogy.  Medck wants to retire someday.  Medck decides to start saving for his retirement in advance.  So far, so good.

But Medck also wants a new car, computer, and wargames.  He spends all of his retirement cash - but writes himself an "IOU" for the funds taken.  Medck also promises to pay himself interest for the money he has already spent on other things.  Medck has no retirement fund, no savings, and if he is also running up his credit card in addition to spending all of his retirement savings has crushing debt.

 

And the premise of this thread has not collapsed.  The government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011 (counting additional loans by the Federal Reserve).  This is a crisis.  You may not realize it, but you will when the piper has to be paid.

 

The government can cut spending, raise taxes or both.  But funding all of the current promises plus paying interest on all of the accumulated debt when the interest rates rise because our creditors start to have doubts will cause immense pain.  The current promises cannot be paid without ruinous rates of taxation.

What's worse, they also want to defend leaving out the 'IOU LOCK BOX' from the public debt calculation.  Insane!


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 12:59pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the problem.

 

The government has promised a certain level of benefits in various programs.  The biggest are social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

The government took in more taxes than necessary to pay for the program for medicare & social security for a while.  Medicare has run a deficit for many years.  Social security is now in a deficit.

 

The government has NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  The "bonds" are IOUs for money already spent. 

 

Let me give you a simple analogy.  Medck wants to retire someday.  Medck decides to start saving for his retirement in advance.  So far, so good.

But Medck also wants a new car, computer, and wargames.  He spends all of his retirement cash - but writes himself an "IOU" for the funds taken.  Medck also promises to pay himself interest for the money he has already spent on other things.  Medck has no retirement fund, no savings, and if he is also running up his credit card in addition to spending all of his retirement savings has crushing debt.

 

And the premise of this thread has not collapsed.  The government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011 (counting additional loans by the Federal Reserve).  This is a crisis.  You may not realize it, but you will when the piper has to be paid.

 

The government can cut spending, raise taxes or both.  But funding all of the current promises plus paying interest on all of the accumulated debt when the interest rates rise because our creditors start to have doubts will cause immense pain.  The current promises cannot be paid without ruinous rates of taxation.

 

Oh, I understand the problem.  You are the one that is simultaneously believing that the Social Security Trust Fund is BOTH (a) not a govt asset and (b) a govt debt that needs to be paid.  But it can't be both -- you could say that it IS an asset and that it will be paid like all other govt debt, or you could say that it IS NOT an asset and consequently does not need to be repaid.  You can't say it isn't an ASSET but still needs to be paid as a DEBT.  It can't exist for debt purposes but not for asset purposes (or vice versa).

 

Also, your analogy -- like most that equate indivudal finance to govt finance -- is spurious.  First, the US as a whole doesn't retire -- there are tens of millions of people working, indeed, there will be more working than retirees.  There is always an earned income stream for retirement from current workers.  Plus the US runs its own monetary policy (i.e. has its currency, unlike, regretably, Medck)

 

Where you are correct is in the Medicare side of the equation -- that is a trust fund that is nearing exhaustion.  This is where the spending crisis comes from -- as the chart I put up earlier shows.  We have out of control health care costs.  Pensions and regular government expenditures are on a sustainable track (like AJ, you might think the govt is too big, but that is a different issue).  Health care is not.  When you say "social security, medicare and medicaid" costs are out of control it is really only because "medicare and medicaid" are out of control.  Social Security is not but that is a common mistake. 

 

Sovereign debt crises only come about when investors think that the govt can't repay.  US tax rates are quite low by international standards (and historical US standards) so that is not likely to occur.  As it is, at the peak of the debt crisis, when the US was only days away from non-payment, government bonds were trading at a negative return.  That is not a sign of an imminent sovreign debt crisis.



Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 1:02pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By airboy

The government can cut spending, raise taxes or both.  But funding all of the current promises plus paying interest on all of the accumulated debt when the interest rates rise because our creditors start to have doubts will cause immense pain.  The current promises cannot be paid without ruinous rates of taxation.

 

Funny how those Clinton-era tax rates weren't ruinous.  You might think that allowed for too large a govt, but they were not ruinous.



Last edited by medck : 31 DEC 2011 1:03pm
Profile Search


31 DEC 2011 at 1:21pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By airboy

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the problem.

 

The government has promised a certain level of benefits in various programs.  The biggest are social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

The government took in more taxes than necessary to pay for the program for medicare & social security for a while.  Medicare has run a deficit for many years.  Social security is now in a deficit.

 

The government has NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  NO ASSETS.  The "bonds" are IOUs for money already spent. 

 

Let me give you a simple analogy.  Medck wants to retire someday.  Medck decides to start saving for his retirement in advance.  So far, so good.

But Medck also wants a new car, computer, and wargames.  He spends all of his retirement cash - but writes himself an "IOU" for the funds taken.  Medck also promises to pay himself interest for the money he has already spent on other things.  Medck has no retirement fund, no savings, and if he is also running up his credit card in addition to spending all of his retirement savings has crushing debt.

 

And the premise of this thread has not collapsed.  The government took on about $2.5 trillion in new debt in 2011 (counting additional loans by the Federal Reserve).  This is a crisis.  You may not realize it, but you will when the piper has to be paid.

 

The government can cut spending, raise taxes or both.  But funding all of the current promises plus paying interest on all of the accumulated debt when the interest rates rise because our creditors start to have doubts will cause immense pain.  The current promises cannot be paid without ruinous rates of taxation.

 

Oh, I understand the problem.  You are the one that is simultaneously believing that the Social Security Trust Fund is BOTH (a) not a govt asset and (b) a govt debt that needs to be paid.  But it can't be both -- you could say that it IS an asset and that it will be paid like all other govt debt, or you could say that it IS NOT an asset and consequently does not need to be repaid.  You can't say it isn't an ASSET but still needs to be paid as a DEBT.  It can't exist for debt purposes but not for asset purposes (or vice versa).

 

Also, your analogy -- like most that equate indivudal finance to govt finance -- is spurious.  First, the US as a whole doesn't retire -- there are tens of millions of people working, indeed, there will be more working than retirees.  There is always an earned income stream for retirement from current workers.  Plus the US runs its own monetary policy (i.e. has its currency, unlike, regretably, Medck)

 

Where you are correct is in the Medicare side of the equation -- that is a trust fund that is nearing exhaustion.  This is where the spending crisis comes from -- as the chart I put up earlier shows.  We have out of control health care costs.  Pensions and regular government expenditures are on a sustainable track (like AJ, you might think the govt is too big, but that is a different issue).  Health care is not.  When you say "social security, medicare and medicaid" costs are out of control it is really only because "medicare and medicaid" are out of control.  Social Security is not but that is a common mistake. 

 

Sovereign debt crises only come about when investors think that the govt can't repay.  US tax rates are quite low by international standards (and historical US standards) so that is not likely to occur.  As it is, at the peak of the debt crisis, when the US was only days away from non-payment, government bonds were trading at a negative return.  That is not a sign of an imminent sovreign debt crisis.

It is ALL debt.  What has to be paid, or supposedly 'repaid' is merely a debt obligation; an unfunded debt obligation at that.

 

And while retirees are supported by a stream of government workers, like Greece has learned and so too California, the promises to those retirees can overwhelm the follow-on workforce's ability to pay that retirement obligation AND provide for their own.  Social Security better highlights this but ever increasing promises, longer lifespans, and a shrinking workforce all conspire to bankrupt the system.  Surely health care is a large part of that but the government subsidies don't lessen that impact; it increases it.  The ultimate folly is a government-run national health care system which is where we're heading.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Last edited by ActionJack : 31 DEC 2011 1:27pm
Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 1:51pm

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By ActionJack

It is ALL debt.  What has to be paid, or supposedly 'repaid' is merely a debt obligation; an unfunded debt obligation at that.

 

And while retirees are supported by a stream of government workers, like Greece has learned and so too California, the promises to those retirees can overwhelm the follow-on workforce's ability to pay that retirement obligation AND provide for their own.  Social Security better highlights this but ever increasing promises, longer lifespans, and a shrinking workforce all conspire to bankrupt the system.  Surely health care is a large part of that but the government subsidies don't lessen that impact; it increases it.  The ultimate folly is a government-run national health care system which is where we're heading.

 

Dude, if it is someone's debt then it is also someone's asset.  Your mortgage debt is the bank's monthly-payable asset.  The US debt held by social security is a payable asset to the Social Security system which is collecting over $100 billion a year on it. 

 

Social Security is very far down on the list of fiscal problems.  First of all, the promises are not increasing, it has been the same for quite some time.  And since the revenue is linked to wages but the benefits to inflation, the obligations do not grow as fast as the underlying revenue (wage growth is higher than inflation).  Second, the longer life spans are largley accounted for by an increasing full retirement age for Social Security.  Finally, the demographic ratios reverse themselves after the baby-boomers start dying off (benefits will drop from 6.2% of GDP to 6.0% indefinitely).  Social Security at best needs tweaks (say raising the tax rate by 1%, or taxing salaries over $110,000, or having slightly more immigrants than anticipated).

 

I am not sure how Greece and California public-sector workers pensions are comparable to a broad-based pay-as-you-go national pension system covering the whole working population.



Last edited by medck : 31 DEC 2011 1:52pm
Profile Search
31 DEC 2011 at 5:51pm

ActionJack

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 7920
Joined: 19 SEP 2005

Status : Offline

Originally Posted By medck

Originally Posted By ActionJack

It is ALL debt.  What has to be paid, or supposedly 'repaid' is merely a debt obligation; an unfunded debt obligation at that.

 

And while retirees are supported by a stream of government workers, like Greece has learned and so too California, the promises to those retirees can overwhelm the follow-on workforce's ability to pay that retirement obligation AND provide for their own.  Social Security better highlights this but ever increasing promises, longer lifespans, and a shrinking workforce all conspire to bankrupt the system.  Surely health care is a large part of that but the government subsidies don't lessen that impact; it increases it.  The ultimate folly is a government-run national health care system which is where we're heading.

 

Dude, if it is someone's debt then it is also someone's asset.  Your mortgage debt is the bank's monthly-payable asset.  The US debt held by social security is a payable asset to the Social Security system which is collecting over $100 billion a year on it. 

 

Non-sequitur!  What the government has done is spend the money on another asset (already consumed) leaving an unfunded obligation.  Those treasuries aren't even tradeable.  To make good on those unfunded liabilities they just go deeper into the citizenry's pocket.  That's the problem!

 

BTW, who's the bank in your analogy?  It can't be the government because they owe the 'mortgage'(IOUs); it can't be the American people, they pay the 'mortgage'.  This is not an accounting problem to be solved or to be used as smoke and mirrors.  California, Greece, etc. are the canary in the coal mine warnings signaling our need to change course and change it quickly.  What we have here is a spending problem; and it's gotten way out of hand only to be made worse by accounting gimmicks and exercises in semantics all used to seemingly create the proverbial 'free lunch'.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."  Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

 

The Old Guard


Last edited by ActionJack : 31 DEC 2011 9:18pm
Profile Search
1 JAN 2012 at 8:56am

medck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 690
Joined: 16 MAR 2004

Status : Offline

It's not a non-sequitor.  One of two scenarios is possible.  We can call them the one-account vs multiple accounts scenarios.  I want to stress here that either one is an intellectually sound interpretation, but combining them is not.  And AJ and AB want to combine them.

 

The one account version says the US govt is one entity and pays for all its programs (education, defense, social security, pornographic art, etc) out of one huge pot of money.  It gets revenue from lots of sources (income tax, Social Security tax, fuel tax, corporate tax, etc) and dumps that money into its account.  If it spends more than it brings in, it borrows the difference.  That is the deficit.  There are no individual accounts, just programs to be funded.  Social Security costs a certain amount ($713 billion in 2010) and that is paid out of general revenue which includes social security taxes and everything else.  There is no "trust fund", that is just a propaganda exercise to explain the shifting of funds based on one system of taxes to another.  The last 25+ years, the so-called "social security surplus" has just that a lot of revenues came from SS taxes and the program didn't pay out as much.  Since all that money went into one pot, it just decreased what the deficit would have looked like.  The money, in AJ's terms was spent.  But note, it was real money that was spent, not borrowed money.  The "borrowed" debt that is in the SS trust fund in this scenario to represent that transfer is just a fictional device.  Now social security is spending a bit more than social security tax revenue.  Big deal.  It all comes from one pot of money; however, this fiction that there is a trust fund means that these "interest" payments are fictional.  The only real transfer from the rest of the budget is the amount between SS revenue ($664 billion) and expenditure (713 billion) -- that is $49 billion.  That the government claims it is sending $117 billion to the $2.6 trillion social security trust fund is just fiction since there is no social security trust fund, it just drops back into the big government pot.  But there is no additional debt, even if the government is telling people there is $2.6 trillion in debt to the social security fund.  Note that if this is your argument, you can't call the debt in the trust funds "debt" since your whole argument is that it doesn't exist.  The (tax) money was spent, yes, but it was spent so the govt did not have to borrow in the past.

 

The multiple account version says the govt has lots of independent accounts (social security, medicare, highway, Indians, military retirement, civil service retirement, etc) that usually bring in more money than they spend in a year.  When they do that, they loan the money to the rest of the government in exchange for real public debt that is repaid with interest at a later date.  Sometimes they spend more and draw down their trust funds; sometimes their trust funds are exhausted and they need transfers from the general revenue (highway trust fund in 200

to make up the difference.  But the asset is real.  It belongs to the specific program and is a claim on future govt revenue through the interest and principal payments on govt debt.  Now in this case, the programs are generally supposed to support themselves through their dedicated income streams (social security, medicare, fuel tax, Indian royalty fees, etc) and trust funds.  If all these trust funds are drawing down their assets, the rest of the govt will have to borrow more from the public and eventually the trust funds will be exhausted if the interest revenue is insufficient to cover the shortfall over the long-term.  At that point, these programs would have to make a claim on the general budget to make up the shortfall.  You might consider this being "bankrupt", although their dedicated income stream will support some level of the program (80% in the case of Social Security).  Note, if the program is spending more than it brings in and interest is not enough to cover this, you can't argue that the program can meet all its obligations forever without changes.  But its trust fund is "real" and the rest of the government is paying interest on it; the debt however, is rather larger.

 

Now, AJ and AB want to claim there is one account for purposes of arguing "there is no trust fund" but they want to claim there are multiple accounts to argue "social security is bust/operating at a loss and US debt is 100% of GDP".  You can't have it both ways.  If there is one account and no trust fund, social security is as viable as the US Government and the public debt is 30% lower than AB is reporting.  If there are multiple accounts, then there is a trust fund, social security is viable through the late 2030s without changes, but the public debt is at the higher level AB is reporting, although 30% of that debt is paid to government itself.

 

I am sypathetic with either version, just not the inconsistent hybrid one that AB and AJ are putting together.



Profile Search
All Forums : [GENERAL] : General Discussion : Current Events > Past & Future Economic Crises

    Page 1 of 2 :

Jump to:
0 Members Subscribed To This Topic