that's were tied to manufacturing or labor it's an economy based on transactional ism it's an economy based on financial fraud as long as the fraud keeps going then you know the economy will exist in this existential. nightmare called global financial ization a little but to suddenly say that the economy is broke as if that means anything so is the same thing for every economy in europe or economy in the world because there are six hundred trillion in derivatives the total total global g.d.p. is sixty trillion there's ten times more debt just the little basis if you add in the flow derivatives there's twenty times more debt than there is actual g.d.p. there is no economy there there's no collateral there it's just flow it's just flow it's frozen flow got during the fraud it's from float to bluff after the f. to the q it's f q it's f u q it's fraud low fee that's all there is to it that's what they generate to generate their salary bonuses that's all or is well this finance minister after saying that they're a credible country they're a solvent country they're a recovering country it's

that's were tied to manufacturing or labor it's an economy based on transactional ism it's an economy based on financial fraud as long as the fraud keeps going then you know the economy will exist in this existential. nightmare called global financial ization a little but to suddenly say that the economy is broke as if that means anything so is the same thing for every economy in europe or economy in the world because there are six hundred trillion in derivatives the total total global g.d.p. is sixty trillion there's ten times more debt just a notable basis if you add in the flow derivatives there's twenty times more debt than there is actual g.d.p. there is no economy there there's no collateral there is just flow it's just flow it's frozen flow got to ring the fraud it's fraud flows to bluff after the f a q f q q q. it's fraud low fi that's all there is to it that's what they generate to generate their salary bonuses that's all or is well this finance minister after saying that they're a credible country they're a solvent country they're a recovering country it's all fine he then w

that's were tied to manufacturing or labor it's an economy based on transactional ism it's an economy based on financial fraud as long as the fraud keeps going then you know the economy will exist in this existential. nightmare called global financial ization a little but to suddenly say that the economy is broke as if that means anything so is the same thing for every economy in europe their economy in the world because there are six hundred trillion derivatives the total total global g.d.p. is sixty trillion there's ten times more debt just the little basis if you add in the flow derivatives there are twenty times more debt than there is actual g.d.p. there is no economy there there's no collateral there is just flow it's just flow it's frozen flow got during the fraud it's from float to bluff after the f a q f q f u q. it's fraud low fi that's all there is to it that's what they generate to generate their salary bonuses that's all or is well this finance minister after saying that they're a credible country they're a solvent country they're a recovering country it's all fine he the

that's were tied to manufacturing or labor it's an economy based on transactional ism it's an economy based on financial fraud as long as the fraud keeps going then you know the economy will exist in this existential. nightmare called global financial ization a little but to suddenly say that the economy is broke as if that means anything so is the same thing for every economy in europe their economy in the world because there are six hundred trillion in derivatives the total total global g.d.p. is sixty trillion there's ten times more debt just a notable basis if you add in the flow derivatives there's twenty times more debt than there is actual g.d.p. there is no economy there there's no collateral there is just flow it's just flow it's frozen flow got through in the fraud it's from float to bluff after the f a q it's f q it's f u q it's fraud low fi that's all there is to it that's what they generate to generate their salary bonuses that's all or is well this finance minister after saying that they're a credible country they're a solvent country they're a recovering country it's al

today, archaeologists struggle to reconstruct the economies of the ancient world, because an economyis essential to any society, past or present. to understand the evolution of economies is to better understand people of all places and of all times. captions by captionamerica, pittsburgh, pa. funding for this program was provided by...

that's the idea of the one nation economy. it will be built by the many by all of us working together and not just a few at the top. that's what we're going to fight for between now and the next general election. this is not just an argument in british politics, this is the argument about where our country goes. it is the choice that will dominate the election. it is a choice between two divisions of our economy. let melee out the choice for you. -- let melee out -- me lay out the choice for you. it is one nation labour business. our economy will only prosper when the vast majority people in this country prosper too. when working families have confidence and security and they can invest in the future and start small businesses of their own. this is a high-stakes election that we will be facing. i think britain is a fork in the road. we can carry on as we are, falling wages, low growth, failure to take on the deficit. or britain can take the path that i have outlined, a recovery made by the many. tacking the low growth and redu

economy so as the u.s. economy goes goes the rest of the world we just know that to be a fact in the united states is absolutely just i don't know money in there being a lot of signs and you don't understand how for china it is martin go ahead go ahead finish your point ok but you're going to have some of the same time as the size of the economy ok all right ed then we'll go back to martin well the facts are that that's what it is i just want to say sorry saw it. denby and again i just want to say we just got the news that china eclipsed the u.s. in trade so if you're looking at the total number of exports and imports of goods in the united states last year that was three point eight two trillion china right point eight seven trillion and if you're looking at the g.d.p. statistics are conscious when you look at the nominal g.d.p. but you need to look at the purchasing power adjusted g.d.p. that really reflects the real size of the economy because on that basis the renminbi is actually still undervalued and

out of the economy. i'm afraid we are getting to a situation where we are being told that tax increases are beat -- are bad for the economy, too much borrowing is bad for the economy, particularly in the future you are projecting, and spending cuts are bad for the economy, and that does not leave us with many options. >> the effects of fiscal policy on the economy are different under different economic circumstances. that is a widely held -- not universally held, but widely held -- view among economists, and that is the perspective we take. under current economic circumstances, when private demand for goods and services is low, additional government demand for the government's offering additional private demand can both increase the overall demand for goods and services and thus encourage businesses to hire more. under different economic circumstances of the sort we usually have in this country and we expect we will have again five or 10 years from now, then this competition you are describing between th

the economy? it's shrinking. gdp contracting last year for the first time in four years and consumer confidence tanking as that payroll tax hike cuts into workers' paychecks. add it all up, is it time to strike calls for more tax hikes? down. i'm brenda buttner, this is "bulls & bears." we've got gary smith, tobin smith, jonas max ferris, and john layfield and susan fox. the white house and democratic leaders still pushing tax hikes. should they be? >> absolutely not, brenda. what i don't understand is how you can propose tax hikes without looking at what the scholars say, the studies say. look, if there was studies out there says raising taxes, great for the economy, i'd get behind it. but you know what, brenda? every single scholarly study for the past 15 years has said one thing: higher taxes, negatively impact growth. it's funny, forget all that, though. if you just look anecdotally, when the left wants to inhibit behavior, whether it's energy consumption or cigarette smoking or any one of the other things th

we have moved from a third of our economy being manufacturing and about ten percent of our economy being finance real estate and insurance find it finance insurance and real estate f.-i are those fire we've gone from mostly manufacturing and a little bit of fire economy to the exact reverse we are now over thirty i think it's thirty five percent or something like that is is the fire economy and only eight nine ten eleven maybe it's a lot or twelve percent is what actually here's there's the chart you can see and as that fire economy has gone up what that means is that you know real estate is is going up artificially in price because that's the new economy so everybody's chasing that as manufacturing collapses and what collapses along with manufacturing good paying jobs so you have people not you know they're not getting good paying jobs they're not getting good wages you can see it's now eleven point two percent if i'm reading the chart right and whereas the economy is now it isn't twenty one percent twenty one point nine percent so you know that's what's happened and so the good paying

by growing the economy.sumer confidence at this point, i don't buy the payroll tax as much as i say what's the next shoe going to drop? this idea of raising taxes and spending at the same time, people are starting to figure out it doesn't add up. >> jonas, there is a lot of debt out there. how can you take care of that mess without tax hikes and spending cuts? >> stackses are a lot lower than they were through jfk's administration for sure. look, i don't think anyone would argue gary's point that when you raise taxes, you cut spending and it hurts the economy. it's a drag on the economy. you are cutting into spending the people are doing, taking it and paying off our debt. however, a bigger drag on the economy, probably the only bigger drag is when a government basically goes broke because they can't pay their debt, like what happened in greece and ireland and other countries that didn't have the tax base to support the spending the politicians hand. the taxes are going to have to go up. the question is how

why is it that spending cuts are bad for the economy but tax increases are somehow not bad for the economy? i don't understand that logic. we need both. we have been having this debate back and forth. that is part of the problem. and we need some spending restraint. the big area where we need it is in health care. the rising health care cost is in growth to the economy. if we can find ways to bring down the costs of health care we can have a win win. >> the report that came out, which shows a slight decline in the deficit goes back up over $1 trillion in ten years because of social security and yet the president and the democrats don't want to touch entitlements. >> they don't want to cut spending. and that hasn't happened. over the weekend speaker pelosi was saying it is not a spending problem it is a deficit problem. even today, the minority whip was saying it is a pay-for problem. bottom line it is spending and americans recognize that the government has to live within it's means and it is costing us jobs and people can't make the hiring decisions to get the going again. >> it has to be

economy needs to. achieve escape velocity and i think i know what he means by that but escape velocity is a term from physics and has a very specific meaning as an algorithm for a rocket to achieve escape velocity you know isn't this another example of an economist trying to sound like he knows what the hell he's talking about absolutely i can't disagree with that i mean what what what what on earth does escape velocity mean in the context of economics it is it doesn't mean anything i think what it's what he's trying to say is that the economy needs to grow and to grow the economy we need to print more money and are willing to sacrifice the risk of having any inflation to create this growth but the problem is that we've had thirty years of this thinking and every single year from the reagan factor on or the amount of debt it's required to create one unit of growth has been ever increasing almost exponentially so we're at a point of hyper inflation well they don't know what to do those different so they

economy? >> that particular policy, yes. >> in your projections, you pointed out that the four-year average is 18% of revenue compared to g.d.p. and your projections are going to get 19%. i would like to point out, we only had 13 instances where revenue hit 19%. but i would like to show a chart here. we have had a wide variety of top marginal tax rates, the attempt to punish success, which is the wrong way to go. >> in your we are+ is the wrong way to go. pushing. but it's amazing how incredibly tight the average around that 18.in my case, 1% over 50-year average. what makes you think we can extract about 19% of revenue when we haven't been able to do it regardless of how we try to punish success? >> there are a lot of other features in the tax code and one could draw pictures like that that showed rates applying to people. income distribution, set of changes that have been made to what sort of income is taxed, what deductions and credits are available. our projection is under current tax law,

economy? and this has a huge potential, if you look at renewables, if you look at other sectors in germany. they have wonderful growth agenda the last 10 years, and they created new jobs. that will bring me to the following point. one thing very clear, the 21st century. that region, that is the most energy and resource efficient, also the most competitive region. if you want an example, look at the producing sector in germany. you have to follow cross structure. 43 on average, 43% in the producing sector our energy resource, 20%. so if we're going to reduce energy resource, we make our companies and we make the whole region more competitive. and that is also not only so ecological sustainability, reducing co2 emissions, reducing energy consumption and resource consumption, is a very, very important. i, just maybe i'm talking just for me, i'm very interested having debate, a transatlantic debate on these four elements, yeah, of economic development. and hopefully, and i know the next conference

basically, the level of income in the economy.my income is $10,000 a year, i'll spend, say, $9,000 on consumers' goods. if my income is $20,000, i'll spend, say, $17,000. if my income is only $4,000, i'll want to spend only $3,900 on consumption. we can see what happens in the keynesian world when investment falls. this fall brings down income here. this in turn brings down consumption. the process doesn't stop here. consumption, according to keynes, ultimately falls by a multiplied amount. suppose a business spends $1 million a year on labor to expand its plant capacity. suddenly, it stops. the income of these laborers is cut by $1 million. let's suppose they would have spent 3/4 of the 1 million on, say, food and automobiles. because of their layoff, there is a $750,000 cut in demand for food and autos. it doesn't end there, for now automobile producers and farmers have less income. their spending on shoes, movies, houses, and singing lessons will be reduced. first the $1 million, then 3/4 of that, then 3/4 of that, until finall

what is the source of the real income of the economy? the goods that the economy produces.nets' studies illuminated the structure of the economy, but also they did more. imagine trying to plan a major war effort without knowing the size of the real gnp that your economy is producing. as the nation prepared for world war ii, this was no academic question. the militarists of berlin and tokyo started this war, but the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it. january 6, 1942. president franklin roosevelt is giving the country its marching orders. the success of those orders in winning world war ii depended on the american economy. for months, the issue of how to prepare for war without actually fighting swung back and forth from congress to the white house. economists were trying to answer the critical question, how much could the economy produce and how fast? german armies moved through europe in 1940, pushing allied forces into the sea at dunkirk. fdr took only tentative steps because of pressures to keep america out of war. in 1940, congress agreed to only t

we have moved from a third of our economy being manufacturing and about ten percent of our economy being finance real estate and insurance find it finance insurance and real estate f.-i our bus fire we've gone from mostly manufacturing and a little bit of fire economy to the exact reverse we are now over thirty i think it's thirty five percent or something like that is is the fire economy and only eight nine ten eleven maybe it's a lot or twelve percent is well actually here's there's the chart you can see and as that fire economy has gone up what that means is that you know real estate is is going up artificially in price because that's the new economy so everybody is chasing that as manufacturing collapses and what collapses along with manufacturing good paying jobs so you have people not you know they're not getting good paying jobs are not getting good wages you can see it's now eleven point two percent if i'm reading the chart right and whereas the economy is now in that twenty one percent twenty one point nine percent so you know that's what's happened and so the good paying manufa

that's were tied to manufacturing or labor it's an economy based on transactional ism it's an economy based on financial fraud as long as the fraud keeps going then you know the economy will exist in this existential. nightmare called global financial ization a little but to suddenly say that the economy is broke as if that means anything so is the same thing for every economy in europe their economy in the world because there are six hundred trillion in derivatives the total total global g.d.p. is sixty trillion there's ten times more debt just to no little basis if you add in the flow derivatives there's twenty times more debt than there is actual g.d.p. there is no economy there there's no collateral there is just flow it's just flow it's frozen flow got during the fraud it's from float to bluff after the f. to the q it's f q it's f u q. it's fraud low fi that's all there is to it that's what they generate to generate their salary bonuses that's all or is well this finance minister after saying that they're a credible country they're a solvent country they're a recovering country i

in the 1960s, we had a go-go economy.onsumer demand ran at a feverish pitch, as did government spending. that began a cycle of inflationary pressures that would continue for a long time. does a booming economy go hand in hand wi inflation? we asked economic analyst richard gill. in the 1960s, most economists woulwhen the total--on occus the aggregate-- demand fin the economyervices is expanng faster than the aggregate supply. everybody was more goods, whicaren't available. prices go up. this was the keynesian analysis. these are simplified keynesian-style aggregate dema and supplyurves, similar to but not exactly the same as the curves we might draw for a paicular pduct, say, refgerars. here, we aealing wiupply and demand for the tol output ofhe nation, its gnp. on the vertical axis, we are now measuring the price of output in general. that is, the price level. let's concentrate on one feature of these curves-- the shape of this keynesian-style it is drawn quite flate. rough most oits nge unwe approach thisine, which rees

robert gibbs said in 2000 the president has been focused on the economy, his focus on the economy andre than he does on the economy each and everyday. back to you. dennis: thank you for being with us. let's follow up with a couple of questions, the president set himself back with the inaugural address and failed to mention the economy at all, is he trying to make up for that? speakers is in a sense what you saw was much less specific, much less detailed presentation, more of a defense and progressivism when it comes to governing the country. there are different types of speeches and there was criticism even from republicans that he failed to mention the economy, but the state of the union is a much more detailed policy speech and that is what we expect out of the president tomorrow. cheryl: many are saying the president called the state of the union at least toda they wil have something to do with spending, those spending ideas may be doa with republicans on capitol hill. cheryl: wan who want to bring another colleague who has presumably something big to say. dennis: david asman joins

economy so as the u.s. economy goes goes the rest of the world we just know that to be a fact in the united states is absolutely just i don't know money invading a lot of signs and you don't understand how for china it is martin go ahead go ahead finish your point ok but we're going to have the same time as the size of the economy ok all right ed then we'll go back to martin well the facts are that that's what it is i just want to say sorry saw it. don't be in there again i just want to say we just got the news that china eclipsed the u.s. in trade so if you're looking at the total number of exports and imports of goods in the united states last year that was three point eight two trillion china right eight seven trillion and if you're looking at the g.d.p. statistics you conscious when you look at the nominal g.d.p. but you need to look at the purchasing power adjusted g.d.p. debt really reflects the real size of the economy because on that basis the renminbi is actually still undervalued and so china and

new ice based economy one of innovation, culture - and education. innovation along with it's partner collaboration are being reflected in the explosive growth of the tech sector for each i couldn't engineer hired by pandora or twitter a multiplier effect occurs with job openings create for eliminate oh, mow drivers bare resist at a asks and yoga instructor and is personal finances gore g u r u's and so as we have seen as multimillion dollar facilities being created on both sith of the bay and parts of the rising sports culture tour which we have an abundance of in pot of our cities education is being manifested by the strong and growing influence of our public and private universities in tandem with our expanding healthcare sector. in oakland in 2013, oakland will have three major projects under way for over $2.2 billion surpassing san franciscotion current healthcare construction. we will get this keep it moving here ... it's a little the technology that we are talking about ... there we go. okay. office space previously used by the shining fire se

the economy?u say? >> i don't think the president is correct on that. strong growth of a seven, 8% growth rate and we are not going to get anything like that, this is not ronald reagan, believe me when i tell you that. this is not jack kennedy. bill clinton did a great job as well. this isn't even bill clinton. the policies they have put into place are antigrowth. stuart: are we headed into a recession? >> i don't know. the fourth quarter 2012, all we need is one more quarter down and that would be the official definition of a recession, so we are close. i think it is pretty rocky, to be honest with you, for the next year. i don't agree with the president, although i would love him to be right and we get very good growth, but i think this next year will be a very tough year. stuart: art laffer joining us from the retirement capital of america, tennessee. is that true? >>> no, we're all hard working people. that is all, stuart. stuart: thank you, art. the dow down 100 points, off 101. that is what

out of the economy. i'm afraid we are getting to a situation where we are being told the tax increases are bad, too much borrowing is bad for the economy, particularly in the future and spending cuts are bad for the economy and that doesn't leave us with many options. >> the effects of fiscal policy on the economy are different under different economic circumstances. that is a widely held, not universally held but widely held view by economists. under current economic circumstances when demands for goods and services, additional demand for spending or the government spurring additional private demand can both increase the overall demand for goods and services and encourage businesses to hire more. under different economic circumstances, and we expect we will have again, five to 10 years from now, this competition you are describing can become acute. and that's why under those economic circumstances, smaller government deficits are good for the economy. >> mr. mcdermott. >> good to see you, mr. elmendorf.

out of the economy. i'm afraid we are getting to a situation where we are being told the tax increases are bad, too much borrowing is bad for the economy, particularly in the future and spending cuts are bad for the economy and that doesn't leave us with many options. >> the effects of fiscal policy on the economy are different under different economic circumstances. that is a widely held, not universally held but widely held view by economists.[applause] under current economic circumstances when demands for goods and services, additional demand for spending or the government spurring additional private demand can both increase the overall demand for goods and services and encourage businesses to hire more. under different economic circumstances, and we expect we will have again, five to 10 years from now, this competition you are describing can become acute. and that's why under those economic circumstances, smaller government deficits are good for the economy. >> mr. mcdermott. >> good to see you, mr.

liz: peter, job growth, and the economy. what are we expecting the president will say in his state of union. >> i think a lot of the same proposals he has made in the past and repeated that particularly on budget hements the quote, balance -- want the quote balances approach, that includes new tax revenues closing loophes, and limiting deductions for taxpayers, we hear him propose potentially, i don't know if he will get into this but say he has said he is willing to look at changes in medicare, we might see specific on means testing which republicans agree with by the way, but i'm not sure we'll hear him say he will change formulas and calculates social security benefits, white house said that is a separate discussion. liz: maybe news -- a reform tucker that is a news flash, president talks about means testing. >> and also he talked about tort reform during the lead up to obamacare, it was not in the final bill, the things he talks about are not necessarily the things he pushes for. liz: private equity? >>, among others, a

economy so as the u.s. economy goes goes the rest of the world we just know that to be a fact in the united states is absolutely just i don't know money invading a lot of signs and you don't understand how for china it is martin go ahead go ahead finish your point ok but we're going to have some of the same time as the size of the economy ok all right ed then we'll go back to martin well the facts are that that's what it is i just want to say sorry sorry. don't be in there again i just want to say we just got the news that china eclipsed the u.s. in trade so if you're looking at the total number of exports and imports of goods in the united states last year that was three point eight two trillion china right point eight seven trillion and if you're looking at the g.d.p. statistics you're conscious when you look at the nominal g.d.p. but you need to look at the purchasing power adjusted g.d.p. that really reflects the real size of the economy because on that basis the renminbi is actually still undervalued a

>> even the japanese economy is about china.he american economy relies on them for the military and -- to maintain a stable balance of power in action -- they are concerned of a change in power. chinese growth makes the japanese economy important. and they will talk about china. >> they have to have japan act -- the second and third largest economies in china and japan, and japan is the counterbalance. >> the u.s. doesn't have the ability to stop china's growth, and will the major economies have the clout to write the rules and set the norms that make sure china's rise is useful. >> we could be talking ofut the security concerns china and japan. this is almost the same, keeping a check on the rising china. >> containing china is not in our means. there is a finite security problem, the island dispute where both sides have been more robust, shall we say, in pursuing the claims as japan buys the islands and china by swarming the waters with paramilitary units, much more aggrressive in the rules of engagement. the prime minister wi

find out what's really happening to the global economy. for a no holds barred the global financial headlines kaiser report on our. blog .

economy needs to. achieve escape velocity and i think i know what he means by that but escape velocity is a term from physics and has a very specific meaning as an algorithm for a rocket to achieve escape velocity you know isn't this another example of an economist trying to sound like he knows what the hell he's talking about absolutely i can't disagree with that i mean what what what what. does this cape philosophy mean in the context of economics it is it doesn't mean anything i think what it's what he's trying to say is that the economy needs to grow and to grow the economy we need to print more money and are willing to sacrifice the risk of having any inflation to create this growth but the problem is that we've had thirty years of this thinking. and every single year from the reagan thatcher onwards the amount of debt it's required to create one unit of growth has been ever increasing almost exponentially so we're at a point of hyper inflation well they don't know what to do this different so the

economy and if not why not? >> banks are currently being paid on the reserve's 25 basis points, 1/4%. they are receiving less than that because they pay fdic premiums on the deposits that they hold on the other side of the balance sheet so they are put in receiving a few basis points on their reserves. if we cut interest on reserves to zero or slightly negative which is possible, it would have a very small effect in the right direction, very small effect on the incentives of banks to make loans. basically they are not finding as many loans as they like to make when they're earning eight basis points and help to get down to zero. it is in the right direction as i said about one of the reasons we hesitated to do that is it would also lower returns throughout the money markets in our economy and would create some problems in terms of functioning money markets, a federal fund market and other short-term cash markets. is not clear the benefits in terms of more stimulus outweigh the cost in terms of market functioning

economy that much as it would just in the going to be no. but there's also will take some action against it though as well while until going to have won a battle at the w t o there is still a long fight ahead first time that a small country took on a war country in the world trade organization. and it was. kind of a you know a bad thing that the united states is just ignoring you know the ball is now in the court of this little island while the copyright left is now an official option to cash in on and to go hopes it might be able to negotiate a deal with the u.s. that is good for all before all ships have sailed and r.t. reporting from n t going barbuda in the caribbean. so that's it for me for the moment i'll be back with the team with more news for you in just under ten minutes from now stay with us if you can. i never knew adam lanza personally but i was in the same high school as adam he was younger than me just a little bit younger. i always thought he was different i always intercity funny he rarely talks and you don't he was a shy ki

they had a totally unbalanced economy. what is happening under this government is a million private sector jobs, unemployment down since the election, the fastest way to business reaction in our recent history, a balance of payment service in cars. we are clearing up the mess they made. they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past because they haven't learned the lessons and that's what the british public will never trust them with the economy i can. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. like the prime minister, i want to see a fresh a settlement for euro. german beer drinkers made 13 times more duty than british drinkers. and spanish drinkers -- british drinkers paid 9.2% in spanish tankers and 10,000 more duty than spanish drinkers. will he take the chancellor for a pint? and do something for british pubs and british republicans speak with my honorable friend quite rightly speaks up for -- i remember visiting the great bravery with him during the last election. i'm sure the chancellor would have listened very caref