Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



Mark Faber predicts economic future if House Republicans kick fiscal cliff down road
Howard Richman, 11/14/2012

In an interview on CNBC's Squawk Box, Mark Faber, author of "The Gloom, Boom, & Doom Report," laid out the economic future if the House Republicans kick the can down the road in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations.

In his scenario, the fiscal cliff results in nothing more than minor tax increases and minor cuts in spending. Meanwhile, the world economy will continue to stagnate until it goes over the precipice with a "complete collapse of society in 5 or 10 years time".

Oh well, it was a great world. But then the Republicans decided that they were the party of tax cuts and the Democrats decided that they were the party of spending increases, and there were no adults.

And to think, if they simply balanced the budget and trade, we would get right out of the depression.

Perhaps it is not as bad as all that. Churchill reportedly said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Maybe we just have to do some more exploring of fiscal irresponsibility and tolerating mercantilism. Then we will figure it out.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak, 11/16/2012:

Gentlemen, you are wrong. Flat wrong. So is Marc Faber.

 

Sequestration (which means $120 bn in cuts in annual federal spending) might be a "minor cut" in the overall scheme of things, as it would barely make a dent in the total federal budget deficit, which is $1.3 trillion per annum.

 

But for the most important function of the federal government - defense - it would be a catastrophe. Coming on top of all defense cuts previously implemented and scheduled by the Obama administration, it would make a $60 bn cut in the defense budget in every year from now through FY2022. This means that, in January, the base defense budget would be cut from $531 bn to $469 bn virtually overnight. War (OCO) spending would have to be cut simoultaneously, as would the DOE's defense-related programs.

This would mean deep cuts in the force structure, training, the maintenance of existing equipment and bases, and the development and acquisition of new equipment. For JCS Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, it would mean creating "the definition of a hollow force".

Analysis from all unbiased sources, from the AEI to the Heritage Foundation to the Bipartisan Policy Center, confirms this. Here's what the BPC says on the subject:

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Sequester%20Paper.pdf

Of course, myself, I have written about sequestration's consequences numerous times on my own blog (http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com).

I know that the federal government has to balance its budget, but mindless across the board cuts, or deeply cutting funding for a must-do function which is the federal government's #1 Constitutional duty, is NOT the solution. The right way to do it is to pass a budget which prioritizes Constitutional priorities and cuts back on unconstitutional programs and agencies. Examples include the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, and Sen. Lee.

America's security is at stake.

Response to this comment by Howard Richman, 11/18/2012:
I would not like to see drastic defense cuts either. I hope that the cuts mostly take fat out of the budget. But the key is avoiding the fiscal disaster that threatens 5-10 years from now if this can is kicked down the road again.




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012

    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term

    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • What's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]