Is it POSSIBLE that the US economy could collapse in the near future?

• justincredible

  

  According to BoatShoes there is a 0% chance of it happening. Ever.
  
  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?40751-Revolution-in-Turkey&p=1452406&viewfull=1#post1452406
  
  Just curious what others thought.
• Belly35

  

  first mofo
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Possible, yes.
  Nearly anything in the economy is possible. (The 30s and 90s proved that)
  But, I'd say doubtful.
  
  The closest we came was 2008, and while it sucked, and still does, it was not a total collapse.
  Barring something from a disaster movie, the economy will have its ebbs and flows as usual.
• HitsRus

  

  I think it's inevitable, but not "in the near future" so I voted "possible". I think it's probably more possible than most people would like to admit.
• justincredible

  

  HitsRus;1452442 wrote:I think it's inevitable, but not "in the near future" so I voted "possible". I think it's probably more possible than most people would like to admit.

  What do you consider near future? 5 years? 10 years? If it's inevitable, what kind of timeframe do you put on it? Just curious.
• gut

  Of course it's possible - spending too much is a leading cause of the destruction of empires.
  
  But we are largely self-sustainable, and small business is still the backbone of America. That provides much more stability than most other countries have - we could survive and adjust to a near total collapse of govt because our govt is mostly not involved in the production and distribution of good and services.
  
  That said, we don't need to be as bad as Greece/Italy to have WORSE riots. It could get very ugly with high unemployment AND gas rationing. Take away the gubmit teet and what is going to happen to crime? .
  
  Anyway, I think the debt bubble is going to make the housing bubble look like a walk in the park. Whatever is left of retirement and savings of most of the 95% after that is going to be wiped out by 70's/80's style inflation (at least). That, combined with austerity, is going to make things very very ugly.
• HitsRus

  

  I say inevitable because no nation lasts forever. I don't think that collapse is imminent or inevitable because of what is going on right now....but it could certainly progress to that. Kind of like the "Doomsday Clock" that they move the hands on depending on the current political dangers, I look at this question the same way. I think we are far closer to this than we were 10 years ago, where I never would have imagined even entertaining this question. Probably the most ominus thing I could imagine that would advance the hands on the clock would be if the democrats captured the house in 2014 and tried to ram thru the rest of their agenda unchecked. That could be the point of no return where a lot of people come to the conclusion that it is inevitable near term.
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1452428 wrote:According to BoatShoes there is a 0% chance of it happening. Ever.
  
  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?40751-Revolution-in-Turkey&p=1452406&viewfull=1#post1452406
  
  Just curious what others thought.

  lol. I never said it was never possible. I never said that there was a 0% chance, ever, as I never responded to your inane reply. Surely you can do better than this, no?
  
  It is possible that a flying spaghetti monster controls the universe. It is possible that our universe is infinitely small within an infinite number of other universes.
  
  In fact, it's even possible that some catastrophic event to collapse worldwide voluntary exchange and economic activity today or tomorrow.
  
  However...a person still herps when they derp if this is the type of thing that is occupying their mind.
  
  the post where I suggested that you derp when you herp you said this;
  

  If (when?) the economy collapses, look out.

  This statement suggests that an economic collapse is likely or perhaps worthy of the concern of the average person by the use of the term "if" and maybe even inevitable with the inclusion of the term "When?".
  
  Those things are entirely different than the use of the term "possible".
  
  The likelihood of the United States economy collapsing in the near future...so as to bring about the type of scenario wherein we all should "look out" that people are referring to when they use words like collapse is slim to none.
  
  So I think your posting of this thread is a bit disingenous. Of course it is possible. Likely? No. But I would not be surprised if our resident doomsday preppers who've been proclaiming inevitable collapse for the last 5 years would disagree with that sentiment so you might went to re-word the poll to better reflect who hasn't marked their beliefs to market.
  
  As the poll is currently worded I would be required to vote in the "Yes, it is POSSIBLE" category and that seems like a problem since the thread appears to designed to find out how many people disagree with me.
• elbuckeye28

  Given that something is not totally unreasonable, disregarding the possibility of an event is not only ignorant, but can be extremely dangerous depending on the person making the assumption. On the other hand, assuming absolute certainty of event can be equally ignorant. There is a reason that probability of an event is bound by 0 and 1.
  
  A good book that touches on this is The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Taleb. Among other things, it provides a good analysis and criticism of those that disregard improbable, but highly influential events.
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1452469 wrote:wordy response

  "When?" is not a declarative statement. You treated it as such.
• elbuckeye28

  BoatShoes;1452469 wrote:lol. I never said it was never possible. I never said that there was a 0% chance, ever, as I never responded to your inane reply. Surely you can do better than this, no?
  
  It is possible that a flying spaghetti monster controls the universe. It is possible that our universe is infinitely small within an infinite number of other universes.
  
  In fact, it's even possible that some catastrophic event to collapse worldwide voluntary exchange and economic activity today or tomorrow.
  
  However...a person still herps when they derp if this is the type of thing that is occupying their mind.
  
  the post where I suggested that you derp when you herp you said this;
  
  
  
  This statement suggests that an economic collapse is likely or perhaps worthy of the concern of the average person by the use of the term "if" and maybe even inevitable with the inclusion of the term "When?".
  
  Those things are entirely different than the use of the term "possible".
  
  The likelihood of the United States economy collapsing in the near future...so as to bring about the type of scenario wherein we all should "look out" that people are referring to when they use words like collapse is slim to none.
  
  So I think your posting of this thread is a bit disingenous. Of course it is possible. Likely? No. But I would not be surprised if our resident doomsday preppers who've been proclaiming inevitable collapse for the last 5 years would disagree with that sentiment so you might went to re-word the poll to better reflect who hasn't marked their beliefs to market.
  
  As the poll is currently worded I would be required to vote in the "Yes, it is POSSIBLE" category and that seems like a problem since the thread appears to designed to find out how many people disagree with me.

  While I tend to think that you are disregarding the likelihood of a collapse, our differences in opinions, among all of us, may be in what we conceptualize as "collapse." I guess for sake of the argument, what are you defining as a collapse?
• elbuckeye28

  justincredible;1452471 wrote:"When?" is not a declarative statement. You treated it as such.

  My assumption was that "when" was conditional on "if." E.g. if the collapse were to happen, when would it happen?
• BoatShoes

  I think that the Federal Reserve is going to eventually adopt a scheme of targeting nominal gdp and not merely inflation targeting and institute a regime of raising interest rates on reserves while using powers granted to it in the Monetary Control Act of 1980 to "tax" reserves if inflation ever gets above levels around 4%.
  
  An economic collapse is not likely to happen in the next decade and the U.S. dollar will continue to remain the world's primary reserve currency and there will be no hyperinflation event in the next decade nor an attack by the bond vigilantes provided there is not some unforeseen increase in fiscal irresponsibility or a wild supply shock between now and then.
• gut

  A collapse, in the literal sense, is probably impossible (both in terms of degree and speed). Certainly nothing remotely comparable to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is just structurally much better off to operate with much much less govt.
  
  The one caveat is oil. That could really prevent our ability to adjust with prices/rationing hurting the movement of goods (including labor).
  
  But the US is 20-25% of the global economy. Even if the dollar collapsed, people are still going to want to do business with the US and sell their goods here (albeit at much higher prices). Countries can and have come back from a default/currency crisis, and the US would be no exception. You could wipe out the collective wealth of everyone in the US and growth would eventually recover vigorously.
  
  So collapse in the literal sense, no. Collapse in the sense of a massively painful and disastrous restructuring/adjustment period, yes. I think we will see another Great Depression in my lifetime, but not in the near future as Japan has been able to putz along for 20 years and counting.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1452476 wrote:there will be no hyperinflation event in the next decade

  Hyperinflation, no. But double-digit inflation is a distinct possibility.
  
  And don't be fooled by the CPI. I think the understanding of inflation is evolving to include asset bubbles, and we've seen that is probably more destructive than high inflation.
• BoatShoes

  elbuckeye28;1452472 wrote:While I tend to think that you are disregarding the likelihood of a collapse, our differences in opinions, among all of us, may be in what we conceptualize as "collapse." I guess for sake of the argument, what are you defining as a collapse?

  Well nobody really considers the Eurozone and the PIIGS in "economic collapse" despite levels of unemployment above 25% and high levels of emigration. There is still lots of hope that the ocean is flat again once the storm is passed.
  
  I consider economic collapse things like hyperinflation to the point of destroying the U.S. dollar; complete collapse of the financial system beyond saving; widespread disruption in legitimate, productive activity as people hide in their basements; the only people safe from crime and looting are holed up in Survivalist Communities in Idaho....Events above and beyond the Great Depression or what is happening in the Eurozone...the types of things libertarians think are going to happen every year but never do.
  
  These things have never happened to countries that issue debt in their own currency...have full control of their own currency...aren't being hammered with sanctions or war reparations...etc.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1452478 wrote:Hyperinflation, no. But double-digit inflation is a distinct possibility.
  
  And don't be fooled by the CPI. I think the understanding of inflation is evolving to include asset bubbles, and we've seen that is probably more destructive than high inflation.

  Well, I think the FED could once again fight asset bubble inflation by preventing the collapse of nominal gdp that comes with the bubbles "popping" if it acted aggressively enough. (Personally I'd rather use fiscal policy so people could have more income but adopting the Treasury View is better than nothing).
• gut

  BoatShoes;1452483 wrote:Well, I think the FED could once again fight asset bubble inflation by preventing the collapse of nominal gdp that comes with the bubbles "popping" if it acted aggressively enough

  But they haven't really shown an ability to prop-up nominal gdp. They brought in Bernanke's helicopters and all they've managed to do is inflate a debt bubble as opposed to nominal gdp. The fed DESPERATELY wants some inflation, but CPI (specifically, wages) not assets.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1452491 wrote:But they haven't really shown an ability to prop-up nominal gdp. They brought in Bernanke's helicopters and all they've managed to do is inflate a debt bubble as opposed to nominal gdp. The fed DESPERATELY wants some inflation, but CPI (specifically, wages) not assets.

  Right by they haven't really tried going after gdp through the expectations channel...they've gotten closer with the adoption of the Evan's Rule but not there yet. If investors, firms and consumers have rational expectations and the Fed full on announces a target of 5%-6% GDP and engages in heroic asset purchases, or creates ngdp futures markets....some of these things the descendants of Milton Friedman are talking about...perhaps they could get there even while we are trying to get to a balanced budget.
• queencitybuckeye

  No one alive today will see a total collapse of the economy.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1452496 wrote:Right by they haven't really tried going after gdp through the expectations channel...

  The problem is massive deficits and higher taxes/uncertainty runs very counter to that being productive - the negative externalities would offset a lot of what you are trying to accomplish.
  
  The rest, ehhhh, I don't think it's a good idea for the Fed to engage in massive market manipulation. What kind of bubbles are you going to create when there's an expectation the fed will engage to quickly re-inflate any popping?!?
  
  Not sure really how you execute it. On the one hand, you want to keep interest rates/cost of capital in a 4-6% range, yet taking action to prop-up inflation would necessarily lower those costs of capital. You'd probably have to rejigger the tax code to make that work (i.e. eliminating the debt interest deduction).
• Manhattan Buckeye

  We won't see a total collapse because of (i) the country's natural resources, (ii) its highly educated citizenry and (iii) its history of free thought.
  
  That said, I don't see how anyone can doubt that economically we've fallen from our peak, and our current administration is clueless as to how to reverse the trend. The only thing preventing inflation is lousy employment given how much we've pumped into our currency. By Obama's end of tenure we'll likely be US$20-25T in debt and on a path where no type of austerity can fix it meaning we'll have to monetize our losses. By and large the middle American dream is gone for most, and we're going to have a generation or two, or three or four that will have worse lives than their parents. Whatever idiotic discussions about what Roy Hibbert or Gordon Gee stated are about, the real social issue that can cause violence (and it already has in Europe) is young people realizing they've been handed a s--t sandwich economically.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1452505 wrote:The problem is massive deficits and higher taxes/uncertainty runs very counter to that being productive - the negative externalities would offset a lot of what you are trying to accomplish

  I agree with this...in normal times, aggressive fiscal and monetary policy can neutralize one another. But now, we're seeing how even with high taxes and lower spending, the FED adopting the Evan's Rule can nevertheless keep the economy trudging along. The idea being that even if we were to do something like approach a fully balanced budget...the FED could nevertheless keep the economy going by being more aggressive...a tall order but can still be done even when short term interest rates are zero perhaps.
  
  So basically, all the arguments I've made about the FED being ineffective at the zero bound and that you can't balance the budget could be wrong and that the FED may be able to do it all on its own. Whether it should be the preferred policy prescription is a different question because as you note...there does seem to be some fears of asset price inflation.
• HitsRus

  

  Whatever idiotic discussions about what Roy Hibbert or Gordon Gee stated are about, the real social issue that can cause violence (and it already has in Europe) is young people realizing they've been handed a s--t sandwich economically.

  I would think, if there is to be a collapse, it would be following a social upheaval. As long as milk and honey flow from the federal fountains, and productive American's wallets, people will continue to focus on the latest gaffe by celebrities...when Hibbert and Gee stop making headlines, there is always the Kardashian sagas.
  At some point, the money runs out.
• believer

  

  HitsRus;1452610 wrote:I would think, if there is to be a collapse, it would be following a social upheaval. As long as milk and honey flow from the federal fountains, and productive American's wallets, people will continue to focus on the latest gaffe by celebrities...when Hibbert and Gee stop making headlines, there is always the Kardashian sagas.
  At some point, the money runs out.

  Naw...quantitative easing cures all ills.