Slashdot Mirror

Well, where is there more money? The best I could come up with is http://www.bea.gov/bea/industry/gpotables/gpo_acti on.cfm?anon=77&table_id=18893&format_type=0 which is next to useless for evaluating your question.

Does anyone have the google-fu to provide even a rudimentary guess as to "where the money is?"

*checks his pockets* Sorry, don't seem to have a phone on me. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE MORON!

Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless gadget out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have a cell phone, don't need a cell phone and don't want a cell phone.

Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.

Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate.

Because the problems of the world are being solved by continuing to buy products from countries which have huge human rights abuses, suppression of free speech and religion and all the other related matters, right?

Not buying products that we don't need from these countries would have an immediate economic impact because these countries would have massive unemployment which would probably cause the people to demand changes.

High savings can be just as damaging to the economy as high borrowings

Except that there is no savings in this country. Currently, we have a negative savings rate. This means that the current economic resilience is being sustained by people buying crap they don't need and not having a reserve in case something happens (job loss, serious medical condition, etc).

The OP is correct. We buy tons of crap we don't need. Go to any flea market or yard sale and look at what is being offered. I've said for years that the only reason the economy keeps going is because of all the useless crap that people buy.

Yeah, now Microsoft's annual sales is only equal to the combined gross state products of Montana and North Dakota instead of that of Utah.

I took a quick look, and Microsoft is not quite there yet. Their latest 10-K filing with the SEC shows Microsoft's gross revenue for the fiscal year of 2006 was about $44B (here). The BEA's records for 2005 show Montana's GDP to be about $30B and N. Dakota is about $24B for a total of $54B (Utah is about $90B [rocket engines and blenders baby :)]).

On a side note: how much money does Microsoft have saved up?

Also in the 10-K filing, it looks like Microsoft has $36B in cash and short-term investments with $45B total in assets (that's after paying over $3.4B in dividends).

The short story is that Microsoft is sitting on a big pile of cash :)

that is why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.

Actually, current government spending is currently about 17% of Real GDP, but in the late 60's and 70's, government spending was about 20% of Real GDP (and 29% in '67). My source is http://www.bea.gov/ the Bureau of Economic Analysis

Wait a minute. You gave me a link which has a debt calculator that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.

Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.

Might want to read this: BEA FAQ on Dark Matter

Really? Then why was the balance of payments deficit for goods for 2005 a record $782 billion? The last time the United States had a positive balance of payments was in 1973, and the deficit has been on an almost steady increase for the past two decades. Read the figures published by the Census Bureau (warning PDF link), or if you prefer, a a graph from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With these figures, the only reason why the United States hasn't yet suffered an Argentina-style economic collapse is that other countries keep buying up US debt...

I take some exception to this. America became what it is because of the natural resources we have (that were stumbled upon and which we commenced to plunder.) So even today our natural resources bless our economy in ways most people never notice. This is not because of the southwest and southeast, it's because of the whole. You grow it, dig it up, or chop it down; everything else is hard to base a sustainable economy on.

What a ridiculous post. There are clear regional variations in economic growth in the US. All regions do depend on raw materials. And your point is?

Weren't you the one running around here yesterday decrying everyone who had a problem with this as holding "fringe kook views?"

Sure didn't take long for the American People to reconsider that one, did it? Come to think of it, that's a perpetual problem for you Bush-loving dead-enders: the moment people get a chance to think through what you're selling, most recognize it for the crap it is.

(In reality, of course, the WaPo poll clearly had some serious problems, but you guys don't have much to hold on to these days, so I understand you latching on to it like Jack Abramoff clutching at Tom Delay.)

Try this on for size: you are part of a small and shrinking minority of people who still think Bush is doing a good job. By your definition, that makes you a member of a "fringe kook minority".

Enjoy that petard you've hoist yourself in.

Oh, and you do realize you're dead wrong about that "record job growth" and "record economic growth" thing, right?

Try getting your information from someone other that Bill O'Reilly. People will laugh at you less. Promise.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle t?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001 &output_view=net_1mth
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?Se lectedTable=1&FirstYear=1990&LastYear=2006&Freq=An n

One must remember that the FDIC approached Microsoft

FDIC stands for "Federal Deposit Insurance Company" and insures checking and savings accounts. The FDIC has exactly jack squat to do with Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't even use savings accounts. So your premise is laughable.The US government doesn't care how much cash a company piles up, so long as all the taxes are paid and the accounting is up to snuff. Indeed, Micrsoft isn't even the record holder; back in the day, IBM had an even bigger pile.

And they can now point to such investment in order to avoid fines and legal lawsuits from the investment end.

This is incoherent beyond belief. Any time Bill Gates or his shareholders decide Microsoft has too much cash laying around they can declare a special dividend and simply give that cash to shareholders. Indeed, Microsoft did just that last year, to the tune of $30 Billion.

Microsoft is trying capture market with the old "lose money on the razors, make money on the razor blades" model. Mabye it'll work, maybe it won't, but the FDIC and goverment pressure have nothing to do with Xbox pricing.

Sorry to dismantle your quaint little rant by injecting reality, but...

China is not paying for our debt, nor is the rest of the world. The US/PRC trade imbalance is $162 billion in China's favor. The US/World trade imbalance is $693 billion. [Source] The monthly US/World trade imbalance is $57.9 billion as of July, 2005. [Source]

If anything, the world cutting off trade with the US would only result in half a trillion dollars pouring into our own economy, at the direct expense of everyone else. The only thing that would really hurt is if OPEC stopped selling us oil. And they would bankrupt themselves if they did.

um. the internet bubble was the greatest bubble since the great depression

Care to quickly compare and contrast the economic effects of the Internet bubble with the Great Depression? I note a 45.6% drop in nominal GDP during the great depression versus no nonminal GDP drop at all after the Internet bubble popped.

Really, if the Internet bubble is the worst that happened in 70 years, you're making my point for me. Compared with the value we get from markets, bubbles are a small problem.

you, my friend are clueless. Political party? that makes a difference how? none at all, what made the difference was not political party. What made the difference was the man himself. Clinton my friend actually tried to make things better, by trying to fix a horribly out of check system of government. By actually using the Check of the Presidenial Veto against the loose moraled Purse String of the legislative branch.

Clinton ran on "It's the economy Stupid!" And he did everything he could as president to do what he believed in. Bush believes that killing people dead makes em too dead for there relatives and friends and sypathizers to come after you again, and again and again He also beleives that borrowing money is the answer to everyones problems 'cause it makes a way for the rich to invest safely' and it also makes sure that the governemt can buy $500 hammars from his buddy for the millitary so his friend can contribute a couple million to his party so he can election after election by preaching to the 'religious' right.. And bush has lived up to his beliefs, by not just killing dead the peoples he could find who helped plan 9/11 but also settle the score with his daddy's arch nemesis, sadam husein, by sending countless thousands of american soldiers to there slaughter, just to make sure that anyone stupid enough to fuck with us would be killed dead. All while increasing the number of $500 hammers the military needed to order from his 'friend' so they could make up for really needing to spend loads of money to keep bush in office in the 04 elecion.

If you fear for our rights, then frankly you need to fucking start opening peoples eyes to the FACT that POLITACL Parties ARE A SHAM. politicians are Playing A popularity CONTEST. God damn, to fucking vote for a god damn president you should be required to fill in his god damned birthdate next to his name. If you're not competent enough to be able to do that without bringing in any papers or elecronic devices into the poll building then you're JUST FEEDING THE POPULARITY CONTEST That THREATENS OUR FREEDOM.

Think about it, it's 8 numbers you have to Learn and Memorize, for at least 5 minutes to make your vote count, It CHANGES every 4-8 years too! and on top of that they should Require that the canidates only place the date in a random section of a page of text filled with the 'policies' they claim to support. I realize people can still lie, and it's not a very high bar to set, and you can't really monitor that absentee voters didn't 'cheat' and have the date with them when they voted.. but think about it, Who can you imagine can vote NOW that Would Never Be able to vote again if we required something so simple?

Do you really want the people who honestly believe republicans are small govt (when they've spent more tax money over the past 50 years than democrats by more than 6%) http://www.bea.gov/ and democrats are all 'gay right, big fedral programs etc' voting? People who just get suckered in, by propaganda and have no care or concern to learn the truth?!? People who IGNORE the People WHO CARE and Try and tell them this stuff as RAVING NUTS??

Good God Man At Least Check The Statistics Before You Swollow The Party Line!

That's a nice theory, and has some merit in terms of motivation, but in terms of practical results it just isn't working. Check the statistics as http://www.bea.gov/ with respect to international transactions. The US saw a rise in the trade balance on services through the late 90's, but since then imports of services (particularly in the royalties category) have been growing at least as fast as exports. Strange as it may sound the US trade balance in terms of copyright licenses is flattening out, and possibly even starting to sink a little. At a time when the trade balance in goods is completely blowing out that's not a good sign.

Jedidiah.

If you look at the GDP of China, they are where we were in 1970!

Me, I will stick with the USA and what we stand for.

As for Sudan, have they asked for help? Do you even know what you are talking about? Sudan has been in a 20-year civil war. It is not the US's job to police the world. The people of Sudan have been fighting back and it is the people who will have their way, just as the USA didn't need intervention during our _own_ civil war. Also,

The Government of Sudan and southern rebel forces signed a framework peace agreement in early June 2004

As for Zimbabwe, there has been a lot of humanitarian assistance, just search Google and see the tons of aid from the USA and the people of the USA.

You need some new history books.

India and China are using trade to defeat us.

If you look at the GDP of China, they are where we were in 1970! I certainly wouldn't call that "China defeating us", since they are over 35 years behind us. Oh, and the GDP of India doesn't even come close to that of the USA. Just because a few low-tech jobs are out-sourced to India, doesn't mean we are being "defeated". A simple bill passed by congress could stop India and China in their tracks. Congress just needs to pass a bill that charges all US companies an extra "heavy" tax for out-sourced labor or any imported goods from China. That would slow things down for China and India and US companies could still do the same trade with other nations like Taiwan. The USA still has _plenty_ of tricks up-her-sleeve to make sure that we don't lose that #1 spot.

So go on now and take your tree-planting-kit and move to Canada, eh!

Your comments regarding pain are dangerous and wrong. It is neither the most effective nor the only punishment to correct behavior. Hopefully you do not have children.

Who is rich and therefore in your crosshairs? What defines someone as rich and gives you more claim to their assets than they have?

I took your challenge and can tell you confidently: I am not a "wage-slave." I also challenge both you and the author of the "distributism" website to produce evidence that the average 13th century peasant could afford "good musical instruments" for their children or school them at home in anything beyond agriculture/homemaking. You know the 13th century was no cake walk for Peasants. It's wasn't just like the Medieval Times restaurant you went to last weekend.

GDP = consumption + investment + exports - imports. It neither has been, nor currently is, negative. Moreover, all the NDP represents is GDP adjusted for capital stock depreciation. It is generally deprecated because its calculation requires more estimation. The real GDP rose between 1995 and 2000 at 4.3% per year while the NDP rose 4% a year over the same time period. The NDP is generally lower than the GDP because of the high cost and rapid depreciation of modern capital stock like software and IT infrastructure. http://www.bea.gov/bea/articles/beawide/2001/0301m ne.pdf

I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but that ain't it.

You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.

In response to your points:

1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!

2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.

3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.

The Federal Reserve is a system set up by capitalists (banks) for capitalists (banks).

Wrong. The Federal Reserve System was set up by an act of Congress December 23, 1913. The Fed is a public/private organization with a complex structure that makes the Board of Governors Federal employees (like Mr. Greenspan) and the staffs of the regional banks private sector employees. Your questions about what it does will be answered somewhat here.

Instead of giving the money to individuals (which is the way it should be done in a truly free system), they pass it out to their buddies in the banking system who make a profit by leasing the money to individual borrowers.

How is this crap insightful? The Fed makes short-term loans to individual banks. These loans are at low interest rates but must be paid back quickly also. Banks also deposit cash reserves with the Fed. There is no 'giving' of money. Even if there were, that's a silly sentiment. "Let's power the economy by giving away worthless paper currency to everyone." It would be worthless because everyone had it in equal measure without any value being attached.

The Federal Reserve also has a very powerful way of making a shit load of money: inflation. They just print a lot more money that they would be allowed to print if the system were regulated by just laws. Who or where does all this money goes to? I have no idea.

Yes, you don't have any idea. You're completely clueless about our financial system. You probably aren't aware that at any moment, there are a few hundred billion in coin and currency in circulation (600 bil or so in 2003). The US GDP in 2003, for instance, was something on the order of 11 trillion dollars. Search that document, it's there. Please note that we aren't even considering bank deposits, stock ownership or any other securities, like bonds.

An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that most money doesn't exist as currency at all. It's only written on paper or stored in a computer somewhere. You'd be right if you came to that conclusion. Therefore, the Fed printing 100 billion more of $100 bills would have a negligible effect anyway.

There's an even more compelling reason why your statement above is stupid. The Fed doesn't *GIVE OUT* money. The funds are either loaned in the short term, or given out of the member bank's deposits to the Fed. Therefore, there is no inflationary pressure associated with $100 bills going to Bank X since they are paid for one way or another.

So how exactly were they making money off of this? Answer: they aren't. They make most of their money off of check processing and ACH transfers which they act as the middleman for.

Essentially, we have the wolves in charge of the chicken coop. There're making a killing, so to speak, and there's nothing you and I can do about it. Other than complain.

Next time you make a comment about something, how about knowing something...anything about what it is you are commenting about?

Thank you.

Let me rebut. First of all, the only reason that space travel seems adventurous is because it is still new, dangerous, expensive, and controversial. All of those aspects need to be removed from the equation of space travel before it can be a productive endeavor. We have to keep working at it, improving it, productionizing it, until space travel becomes old, safe, cheap, and boring. THen we won't have any old-school scientists (taken your metamucil today, Roger?) spewing drivel like this.

Second, any "scientist" who states that manned space travel is a waste is simple envious of the "whopping" budget for manned space flights. True, the space program is expensive compared to say, dinner at Burger Barn. But compared to the 2003 GDP of $10.7 Trillion, the entire NASA budget for 2003 was $15.0 Billion, or only 0.14% of our nation's productivity. Or as a percentage of the $2.128 Trillion 2003 federal budget, only 0.71%. (Holy crap, I had no idea that the feds took 20% of the GDP!) Or finally, as a percentage of the interest we paid on the national debt last year of $181 Billion, only 8.3%. Of Social Security's $472 Billion, 3.2%; of National defense's $368 Billion, 4.1%; of Medicare/Medicaid's $390 Billion, 3.8%; of other 'discretionary' spending's $390 Billion, also 3.8%. Compared to the major federal spending programs, NASA is small potatoes indeed.

There will always be space exploration, but what we need now is to start harvesting the resources available in space. Space travel will become a national priority when it becomes a net positive on the balance sheet. Or in other words, when the expenses are clearly outweighed by the benefits, by the resources made available, and by the money to be made, in outer space.

Argh! I hate it when "distinguished elder scientists" come up with this kind of crap. Do they just enjoy shooting themselves, and their colleagues, in the foot? Sheesh.

You need to educate yourself about what a recession is. By definition, a recession is a 2 quarter consecutive decline in the GDP. That has only happened once since Bush took office, and only lasted one quarter (Q3 of 2001). We have maintained positive, and sometimes record-breaking growth, ever since then.

Ongoing wars? He started them! Afghanistan was arguably justified, but the biggest economic damage - Iraq - was soley the neocon's doing.

Wrong. Osama Bin Laden started it when he issued his Fatwah in 1998, declaring Jihad against the US.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

2003 U.S. GDP: just shy of 11 trillion

Current U.S. national debt: just over 7 trillion, and growing at an absurd rate due to current fiscal policy.

We're fucked, my friend.

The national debt figures are kept by the Treasury and can be found here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

There are some cautionary notes about the figures. Watch out for current dollar and chained figures. If you are comparing the debt to the GDP, do not do so using the chained figures as they may not have used the same [in|de]flation or base year. As a basic yardstick, if they both use the same base year, you're probably OK, but it's still shaky. Using unadjusted figures for comparison over time will yield more accurate results.

That said, it's worth noting that we've added $20B to the national debt--this month--and since taking office George II has added roughly a $1.5T to the debt, for a total of over $7T. There's this Republican mantra that deficit spending and ballooning the debt don't matter, but the smoke and mirrors of it is that the economic gains they claim can be almost dollar for dollar attributed to their irresponsible borrowing habits like the Yuppie who leverages everything for a new BMW. They claim the Democrats are worse, but the numbers are all there...then of course, they come out saying, "oh, we're all just as bad. That's partisan talk." Oh, piss off guys, no, Republicans ARE worse about this. MUCH worse. When the numbers start getting into 200-300% difference, it's not exactly a point of subtlety.

If these numbers show anything, it is that the recession reached its lowest point in 2001 and the U. S. has been in a recovery since then. Admittedly, the recovery has recently weakened.

While the downturn in the recording industry's sales may be partially explained by recession, I'm not certain if that is the whole story. Have sales been recovering in the past year or so? I doubt it.

2000-Q1: 2.6
2000-Q2: 4.8
2000-Q3: .6
2000-Q4: 1.1
2001-Q1: - .6
2001-Q2: -1.6
2001-Q3: - .3
2001-Q4: 2.7
2002-Q1: 5.0
2002-Q2: 1.3
2002-Q3: 4.0
2002-Q4: 1.4
2003-Q1: 1.4

Actually, 'production' means more than manufacturing. The amount of production accomplished during some step in the economic chain from raw material to consumer is the "value added" - the difference in prices between the materials and the finished product.

Example: I am a widget maker. I buy widget parts from suppliers, and I pay workers to assemble those parts into widgets, which I then sell to distributors. If I pay 60 cents for the parts, and then sell the widgets for a dollar, then I have added 40 cents of value per widget. (Rationale: the parts came in valued on the open market at sixty cents; they left my facility valued at a dollar. The difference can be accounted for by the value I've added as a result of my operations.) The GDP therefore increases by 40 cents times the number of widgets I sell.

Wal-Mart does not manufacture anything, but they do add value: they perform the services of distribution, stocking, shelving, storage, and so forth. The total value Wal-Mart adds to the economy is its gross margin - the amount of its sales minus the amount of money it spent purchasing the goods it resold. For 2002, this figure was $54,687,000,000. (source: Wal-Mart 2003 annual report) For comparison, the 2002 US GDP was $9,439,900,000,000 (source: Bureau of Economic Analysis).

This means that Wal-Mart was responsible for 0.56% of the production in the American economy in 2002. The original poster's mistake was to use their net sales figure of $244,524,000,000. That number is indeed 2.6% of the US GDP - very close to the quoted figure. However, $191,838,000,000 of that is the cost of goods sold by Wal-Mart (the money they paid to purchase those goods), and represents production by other entities besides Wal-Mart.

Motion pictures, amusement and recreation account for $114.8 billion of the nation's GDP. Rest assured, most of that "amusement and recreation" is from amusement parks and the like. The nation's GDP is over $10 trillion. In other words, copyrights and patents make up less than 1.1% of the U.S. economy.

After all, we don't have manufacturing anymore

Manufacturing accounts for $1.4 trillion of the GDP (about 14%). Our other big industries are construction, finance, insurance, real estate, transportation, utilities, health care, legal, miscellaneous business services, and government.

we've become a knowledge & entertainment center.

That's what your television set wants you to believe, but the facts don't support it.

Boy is it obvious when the economically-challenged open their mouths.

First, I don't know where this number of $19 million dollars came from, the BEA says that we spent $204.5 billion from 1982-2001 on space.

How much did the government spend on national defense from 1982-2001? $5.773 trillion.

How much did the government spend on interest payments from 1982-2001? $4.09 trillion

How much did the government spend on "income securities" (welfare, diability, etc.) from 1982-2001? $9 trillion.

We have been continuously been in deficit spending since 1979.

The government now spends more per capita per year than what per capita yearly income was in 1978.

In the year 2000, expenditures on national defense was 11.6% of total expenditures, which was $2.77 trillion Income securites was 23.2%.

Currently the effective tax rate (the average per capita tax) is about 33%. In 1913 it was 5%.

Median income for a 4-person family in 2000 was $62,228. In 1982 it was $27,619.

The debt is bad, but the tax burden is the problem. The way to get rid of the debt is to curb spending, but military spending only accounts for about 11%, and let the economy grow out of the debt. Per capita income has been skyrocketting, but so have expenditures and consequently taxes. But you can't blame military spending. Someone has fed you bull and you ate it. I can tell when someone has never taken an economics class, or been in the military.

By the way, if you pay income tax, you are by definition "rich", since the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income tax. Futhermore, ANY reduction in income taxes now by rule will disportionately affect the rich since the rich so disportionately carry the burden.

The UN Human Development Report ranks Sweden second behind Norway in its Human Development Index. The U.S. is ranked sixth. The index looks at factors such as economic justice, peace, health, education, and the robustness of democratic instititutions.

The "news" story these others are talking about seems like spin.

The notion that your average Swede is worse off than your average U.S. Black would be laughable if it weren't so outrageous. Median houselhold income for Black Americans has dropped below $30 000 this year--but that's not a good basis for comparison to the Europeans. The number that really counts is "Real Disposible Personal Income," and that's far less. (I can't find BEA data that breaks it down by race, but overall rdpi per capita is roughly 3/5 of median household, so you can make an educated guess.)

You can get the census data from census.gov or via the Whitehouse's pretty nifty economic stats page

The last time I looked at Hodges sites (maybe a year ago) he was saying that federal, state and local government outlays combined to just shy of 40% of the national income. The key here is the use of national income as opposed to GDP; I forget his justification. For 1999 that would be right about 35%. See this link for more information concerning the difference between national income and GDP and for historical data.

cheers