Slashdot Mirror

Anyway, that's off topic. What really bugs me is the whole "selling us to China" meme. What percent of public debt do you think china owns? 50%? 75%? The answer, if Wikipedia is right (and maybe it isn't, but I'm going to ask for a citation if you think so) was 8%, or about a trillion dollars, as of may 2011. The U.K., not for nothing, held over 900 billion dollars as well but I rarely see the same self-induced hypoxia over that. Isn't "selling the entire nation to the Chinese" a rather hysterical instance of sinophobic alarmism?

Well, if China, who owns the largest percentage of foreign-held US debt, suddenly dumped all or even a significant fraction of the US Treasury instruments of debt they hold, the results wouldn't be good for the US economy or the Dollar. Such a move by the Chinese would likely also trigger other foreign holders of US debt to dump their holdings as well. That Sword of Damocles gives the Chinese a lot of power over the US.

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2011/08/pie-chart-of-who-owns-the-national-debt-mid-2011.html

The UK is a supposed ally, so there's not much worry that 10 Downing would take steps to purposely wreck the US economy.

Point being that it's not necessary to hold a majority of the total US debt to have the power to use that debt to do immense damage.

That's a myth. See, e.g., http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/11/lets-kill-the-s.html

In addition, the myth ignores the fact that the CPI overstates inflation -- the Boskin Commission estimated this was about 1.1 percentage points per year. Further, it ignores improvements in the quality of goods. So, for example, a car in 1973 might have cost, say $2,000. But, it probably only lasted 5 years, came without air conditioning and was far more dangerous than today's $16,000 cars that easily last 10 years,

And by "change economic direction of the past", you mean, vote out the democrats who have been in power since 2006, and return the Republicans to power, right?

An unpopular sentiment on Slashdot, but the "new" democrats, epitomized in Obama, have put this country on the fast track (within a decade) to national bankruptcy.

Mark my words, without a change in direction, we will end up close to 100% debt-to-GDP, and then China will start a trade war with the view that a trade war will hurt them less then us. Thankfully, however, it seems that the American voter has tired of the democrats, and we'll safely have the adults back in charge this November. Better yet, Obama will remain president, and given that the job market won't recover till 2013+, we'll have another Reagan revolution in 2012.

And Republicans will be around to take the credit for the recovery.

Say what you will about Bush's pre-2006 economic policies, he left the national debt situation better off than Clinton did.

You may find this chart amusing, even though it's a couple of years old
http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif
From: http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated_pie_cha.html

You may find this chart amusing, even though it's a couple of years old
http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif
From: http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated_pie_cha.html

Oh right, totalitarianism under the rule of the Chinese (who own the US)

Please stop repeating this myth. China doesn't "own" the US. It doesn't even own a majority or even a quarter of the outstanding US debt. Here is an interesting pie chart for your consideration. The data is a little out of date (I believe the Chinese have since surpassed the Japanese as the largest foreign creditor) but it shows that the overwhelming majority of the US debt is owned by the US Government itself.

This is what happens when the Government borrows money from the social security trust fund and other such accounting gimmicks. The second largest holder is American citizens and institutions. Foreign creditors account for the remainder, of which China doesn't even have a majority.

BTW, I agree with everything else you said.

That's idiotic.

If I offer you $100,000,000 for a hamburger, is that coercion?

For that matter, just what exactly is your definition of coercion? Giving you a decision where the two outcomes are not equal? That's perverse; and it explains why you don't think freedom matters.

The cold hard math is that Capitalism has brought more people (might I even use the term "Billions") out of poverty than any other socioeconomic system; and we have tried others. Africa is stuck in sociostatism, and the eastern block tried 60+ years of "pure" socialism. Now, it may be true that these people brought out of poverty are not yet "well off", however, that just goes to show that you do not understand the magnitude of the task necessary to bring wealth and prosperity to the world.

You accuse us Libertarians of not understanding the mechanics of economic coercion, whatever that oxymoron maybe, however, I am certain that you either do not understand, or choose to ignore, the coercion implicit in statism. The red tape that small business owners must navigate through, the state bureaucrats that delight in making average blue collar workers miserable while waiting in line at the department of motor vehicles, or the tax burden carried by the working class.

P.S. If it is progressive "funding" for the government you are fighting for, that you should be happy that the Bush Administration has significantly increased the percentage of federal revenue from "the rich".

Coercion, huh?

The left-leaning, welfare capitalism (Happy Capitalism?) states of Europe are dominated by aristocrat-like families of wealth and power, dynasties who rule through the generations (not unlike the Kennedies), running empires which are built upon the notion of appearing to support the working class.

What I view as coercion is limits on economic mobility, both upwards and downwards. I do not like the idea that I cannot succeed through the fruits of my labor, and I really hate the idea that "my betters" (i.e. the people that run the banks and the automakers in this country) are too successful to fail, no matter how many mistakes they make, and no matter how stupid they are.

That's economic coercion. When the government medals to insure that success is not rewards (or even punished!), and failure is rewarded, and not punished.

I'm just asking you to agree that other people feel it does exist, and why it subsequently leads them to a different conclusion than your own.

This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read. I might agree that other people believe in a god who tells them not to receive medical treatment as it leaves their souls impure, but I'm sure as hell not going to permit them to ban medical research.

A lot of people believe a lot of stupid things. Your belief in the efficacy of the state is one of those things. I don't have to respect your beliefs just because you have them, and I feel a moral obligation to fight against the imposition of the state coercion, let alone the economic coercion, that you advocate.

To support your point, check out this map of farm subsidy payments to people living in New York City. So yes, any waste in NASA is dwarfed by waste elsewhere in the budget.

I'd rather see them simply reduce spending and pay off the national debt.

Hear, hear. The impression that China is getting a stranglehold on the US by being their biggest debt holder is completely false, the UK is buying faster than the Chinese, and Japan owns the most of any foreign country, a mere 6%. In any event, the US can always find foreign investment, and 73% of the debt is domesticly owned. Still, I suspect any major foreign investor in the US is expecting more than just a good interest rate.

The scary part is that the US debt is already over 73% of its GDP and rising [note the "debt clock" in the right side column]. The deficit between GDP loss and debt increase is about $24,000 per second.

tick

tick

tick

I'm not sure what you expect from this. Needless to say, I have disagreed with the GAO assessments (and statements by Mr Walker in particular) in the past, I disagree with this statement of his, and I think its likely I will disagree with him more in the future. He seems to consistently ignore half of the equation, focusing only on the growing debt and ignoring the even faster growing economy. I am not alone in this view, btw.

short term deficits are not that big an issue. However, we've run a deficit for the vast majority of my lifetime. The magic thing is that deficits accumulate into debt. Add the extra magic of compounding interest and you're in for a real treat. The debt is my primary concern.

Secondarily, I am worried by the methods the government use to come up with the figures you mention without citations. I am more disturbed, however by the means the government use to hide deficit and debt, namely "borrowing" from the "separate, never to be touched" social security funds and highway trust. Both of those funds are dramatically underfunded for their obligations, and those underfundings are only going to be exacerbated with time. Where I'm from, we call it "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

In addition to a legitimate fear of impending hyperinflation (get out from under your rock and look into the current state of the money markets)

I am deeply concerned with the direct threat to our sovereignty it represents. Just look at the Chinese trial balloon with respect to shorting our debt. They *can* do it. It would hurt them. At this point in their development, it would hurt us worse.

BTW: the unspoken part of your signature is "and we will throw out previous definitions of just war in order to satisfy our urge to spread "freedom" through tyranny."

Hey - I call shenagigans. site your sources!

"1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt."

The Chinese hold about 4% of the US debt. (see this chart). The popular-but-false rumors about China's share of our federal debt being a major contributer to keeping the US Dollar "afloat" are just wrong.

China owns about half as much US Debt as Japan, 1/7th the debt owned by US tax payers, and only 15 percent of the debt owned by forgien countries.

Sure, I'm not thrilled with a communist regiem owning 4% of our debt, but that's not enough to significantly affect our currency.

There is, however, and argument that China 'free-floating' the Yen could cause some nasty world wide banking issuess...

How much US debt are they buying?
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_ch art_of_wh.html
They don't even show up on the list.

According to the US State Dept, US exports to Russia $3 Billion, imports $11.8 billion.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm

In comparison South Korea had $309 and $325 billion in imports and exports with the US.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_b usiness/181520.html

The US as far as economy and trade does not NEED Russia now, if the energy supply becomes a crisis down the road that might change. In the recent past Russia has leaned a lot on the US while making its transition to a market economy.

What the US would like to see from Russia is its continuing down the free market/democratic path. Russia has the potential with population and resources for the US to need them, but that has not happened yet.

Now China, that's a different story.

1. In order for the economy to grow, the money supply must grow. Deficit spending allows us to increase the money supply without the inflationary pressures of printing more currency or borrowing from the Fed.
2. A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
3. The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
4. The government can use the money generated by selling the securities to build up our infrastructure and defend us from external threats- these are the core responsibilities of the government.

Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.

debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb

Not really. The debt to GDP ratio, isn't that bad, and it's well under the European average. Still, that doesn't excuse the irresponsible spending spree that we've gotten from alleged "fiscal conservatives" in Congress and the White House.