jaimito101 wrote:well ok maybe i should have said how can you predict the 10 year deficit with, any ACCURACY?!? you have economic phases they have no idea/control of, and they have 3 presidential terms incorporated within this prognosis... wich all bring their own new measures and plans. there is no way it can be accuratly predicted what the deficit is in in 10 years! This is just a prime example of the faulted use of statistics. They should accompany such a graph with a warning sign.
Doc_Brown wrote:Second point: The deficit is closely related to the economy. When the economy declines, so does revenue (and the decline is far worse than any that can be attributed to lower taxes). Notice that we went from a budget surplus in 2000 at the height of the tech/dot com bubble down to a peak deficit in 2004, shortly after the stock markets reached their bottoms. We had steady recovery, growth, and declining deficits that all coincided with rising stocks up through 2007. If we were to see a similar projection over the next few years, I would be a lot more comfortable. I would like to see deficits climbing towards 0 around 2012-2014 (when we'll supposedly be well on our way to full economic recovery). Indeed, the projections do have the deficit declining until 2012, but then they start increasing again. Even the highly optimistic White House projections have the deficit increasing, though at a slower pace than the CBO expects.
So again... what could the whitehouse be predicting that we do not know from 2012 on....? Are they saying that the crisis may drag on till 2019?
If you nail these guys down, they are the first to admit that their predictions are not very accurate. There are just way too many variables and several completely unkown factors.
Arguing who's estimates are better is almost like arguing philosophy. Interesting, as long as you don't expect a real result.
However, here are some things we need to, but rarely do consider:
1. Oil, whether peaked or not, is going to run out in a generation or so. When you stop and realize that cars were only just invented at the turn of the 20th century .... its a drop in the history of humanity, yet look at all the change we have wreaked.
2. Species are dying off. Granted, we don't necessarily need every last insect down in the amazon or 100 species of lemur. But, honeybees, most amphibians around the world, etc. should give pause. There is hardly a stream in the world that is not home to endangered fish. This is a concern both because of water safety issues (water is the next battle ground resource), because water is and "intensified" example of much that happens on land (surface runoff takes many pollutants, etc.) and is rather difficult to clean once contaminated (in small quantities, sure, but a major stream system is almost impossible).
3. We cannot take and not give back. That is true if you are a corporation, even a relatively small business owner, who benefits from things like a healthy, educated working population, but balks at paying for insurance or taxes for schools in lieu of big bonuses and stockholder payouts. It is true if you are even a small business owner who thinks that you need a million in profit (NOT just receipts, I mean true profit) before you can pay anyone but your manager more than $40,000. (the low-income level for a family of 4 in PA, just as an example). (and yes, I absolutely know plenty of small business owners who even make less than their employees... but those others hurt ALL of us, especially the decently run small businesses).
It is also true when you are talking about land and soil issues. Timber is renewable, but only if you treat the land it grows upon correctly. Farmland is not exchangeable for any other land and will not stay prime farmland unless properly managed. (ditto grazing land). New methods and procedures can bring advances, but if those methods are not sustainable, then it is simply another form of mining... and all mines give out eventually.
4. Focus on stocks lets people forget that the true and real basis of our economy, of all economies is production of goods and services. Stock payouts, etc are all just ways of skimming finances off of that fundamental labor and cycling the money around. Without a true input, without generation of products, the system fails. To produce products, you have to pay people who work in the industries at ALL levels a wage that allows them to live reasonably. Yes, Americans have been wasteful. However, most americans are not supposed to be financial experts. I have heard more than a few say, in years past, that they did not worry too much about taking out mortgages and such because "the banks would not give out the loan if it did not make sense". Yet, it is we, the people, not the banks, being asked to take responsibility. As thanks, they jack up our interest rates and increase fees to ridiculous levels. THEN the politicians want to step back and ask "why isn't our economy growing?" .. well, duh... People who are not getting paid won't buy things. But, that sets aside the whole issue of thinking growth can be unlimited, can continue forever and ever. There is no "new world" of resources to exploit, no Africa , not even a south America. THAT is why sustainable growth is the new necessity. There are some new resources out there (Russia, Canada have timber and some difficult to reach resources). But, they are not without limit.
they project 10 years out 
[/quote]
