China will own 1 trillion US dollars

No need to get sarcastic about it. If you Americans decide to spend more money than you earn, somebody has to lend you the extra money. If Americans buy more than they make, somebody from outside has to cover the arising shortage of products and services. The problem here is that the average American -- averaged over both governments and consumers -- is wasteful and spend-thrift. That's bad; I'd like to see it corrected; but stop blaming China for your very own problems, and start getting your own house in order! Don't expect us foreigners to pity you, either. You may not like to hear it, but even with all their current problems, average Americans make more money than the average members of almost any other nation in the world. Whatever your problems are, we would happily trade them for ours.

Whatever your problems are, we would happily trade them for ours.

Thomas, don't move, stay where you are.
.
Who wants to live in a country that has more billionaires and people in prison than any other nation.
.
The percentage of Americans living in severe poverty--earning less than half of the poverty threshold--grew by 20% between 2000 and 2004, and the proportion in higher income tiers fell. The researchers reported that the number of Americans living in severe poverty increased by 3.6 million between 2000 and 2004.
.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=50785

I'm not saying America is perfect. I said most other countries in the world would be happy to trade their problems for yours. If you disagree, if you don't like the country you live in, you are welcome to come over here and relish our 10% unemployment rate.

Thomas, right under my moonflower is my location. Luckily I live in Canada.
.
Our problem: we just elected a Conservative government. They were handed a huge surplus (like Bush). As usual, they will turn it into a deficit (like Bush).
.
It is the Conservative way.

It is indeed odd that the "conservatives" spend more than the "liberals". Bush and his cronies are slowly destroying America. It's only a matter of time before every country on Earth pities us.

Congress Sets New Federal Debt Limit: $9 Trillion.
.
When President Bush took office five years ago, the national debt was at $5.6 trillion; since then, big budget surpluses have collapsed into huge deficits, and the debt has shot up nearly 50 percent.
.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521

Congratulations -- that makes you the citizen of one of the few countries who may not want to trade their problems for those of the US.
.

Perhaps it is. I assure you, however, that the conservative way is not China's fault.

Thomas, you are probably right. China is not guilty. All it has to do is wait for the overstuffed empire to implode.
.
No war necessary.
.
http://www.tagg.org/rants/OECDChildPov.html

Our rate over here is close to that as well. Don't believe the f*cked up accounting that the BLS uses to keep the numbers low.

Cycloptichorn

It is clear that Detano Inipo either never took Economics 101, or if he did, slept through most of the class.

Detano Inipo posts the figure---National Debt-5.6 Trillion when President Bush came into office---

I am very much afraid that Detano Inipo knows very little about Economics.

I can teach him if he pays very close attention:

Lesson No. 1---The government's ability to finance its debt is tied to the size and strength of the economy or the GDP

Lesson No. 2---As a percentage of GDP. debt held by the public was highest at the end of World War II, at 109 PERCENT AND THEN FELL TO 24 PERCENT IN 1974 BEFORE GRADUALLY RISING TO A PEAK OF 68 PERCENT TODAY.

Lesson No. 3--During most of its History the USA has been in Debt.

Can you cite a source for that, or is this information derived from your original research?

Thomas wrote:


I'm not saying America is perfect. I said most other countries in the world would be happy to trade their problems for yours. If you disagree, if you don't like the country you live in, you are welcome to come over here and relish our 10% unemployment rate.

end of quote.

Cyclopitchorn thinks that the BLS report on Unemployment is bogus. The question is-Has it always been bogus? Was it fake during the Clinton Administration? I never read any left winger claiming that!

Cyclopitchorn is ridiculous, of course! The BLS has reported the Unemployment Statistics for years for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. There are, of course, numerous RELIABLE Economic sites which are able to verify their statements.

Note:



Series Id: LNS14000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7
**************************************************

I don't see any Unempolyment Rates even CLOSE to 10% in those figures>

Thomas- Cyclopitchorn had a great line--Do you think I can use it in the future when I read something with which I do not agree even though the information comes from a reliable source/

Cyclopitchorn's line is:

Don't believe the f*cked up accounting that the BLS uses to keep the numbers low

Do you think, Thomas, that I could use that in the future?

EG

Don't believe the f*cked up___________that the _________uses to keep the _______________.

All I would have to do, Thomas, is to fill in the blanks depending on what I am attempting to denigrate.

I have two thoughts on the subject.

The first is that the U.S. is living about five billion dollars a day beyond our means. That's the combined Federal budget deficit and trade deficit. And since the net U.S. savings rate is zero, the shortfall can only be made up by borrowing money from overseas - hence China owning a cool trillion of our debt.

So here's my question to U.S. A2Kers - are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

- Do you demand fiscal responsibility from your elected officials, or do you demand lower taxes and higher government benefits?

- Do you grow or manufacture something sold overseas, or do you rush out and buy every electronic gadget made overseas?

My second thought is what our dear friends in China will do with all those Dollars. Several posts have suggested the Chinese will not want to take any action that would crater their value. I wonder. I have a mental image of the Chinese Ambassador telling Mr. Bush something along the lines of "We will be re-uniting with Taiwan next Tuesday. If you do anything to oppose us, we will dump all trillion of our dollars in the world market, cratering the Dollar." Perhaps it would be worth it to the Chinese to regain Taiwan without fighting a World War to do so.

Jim- I have two suggestions for you!

l. Read "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. It is one of the best books of the last twenty years and it explains "globalization".

If the Chinese think the US is a good place to invest, God Bless Them!

Are you aware that China is filled with US corporations and companies?

Do you know that One Trillion Dollars is only about 7 % of our YEARLY GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT?

The best way to keep good relations with countries is to trade and do business with them. It is possible that one day China will become a totally capitalistic country.

2. The deficit is not a big problem. The ability of a country to handle its debt and deficit is linked directly to the size of its Gross National Product.

At this time, our GNP is about 13 Trillion and the total debt( not deficit, which is yearly) is about 8 and a half Trillion.

The ratio is about 68%...Total Debt is about 68% of GNP.

THE TOTAL DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES DURING AND RIGHT AFTER WORLD WAR II WAS MORE THAN 100% OF THE YEARLY GNP BUT THAT RATIO LESSENED UNTIL 1972 WHEN THE RATIO BEGAN TO GO UP AGAIN.


The bottom line is, of course, GROWTH IN GNP will easily handle DEBT. It has been done before, it can be done again!

Bernard - I hope you are right and I am 100% dead wrong. I really hope so.

I agree the current levels of debt are managable. In fact, many European countries have higher levels of debt than the U.S. currently has. Its that "currently" part that scares me.

Every day the U.S goes another $4 to $5 billion dollars deeper in debt, and I do not see anything on the horizon to stop this. I read a pundit once who observed "if something cannot go on forever, then it will stop". I do not believe the current trend is sustainable. Its what happens when it stops that really worries me.

Jim- I think you should look at the debt as the kind of thing that we all run into from time to time in our households.

If I make $100,000 a year and have an outstanding debt of $70,000 and add $2,000 a year to my debt, I am doing all right in the interim. It is when my total salary does not go up and I keep adding $2,000 or $3,000 a year to my total debt that I am in trouble.



Note:

The USA has an intake(yearly salary?) of 13,000,000,000,000-13 trillion

It has a total debt of about 8,500,000,000,000-Eight and a half trillion-


Note:

The USA had a TOTAL INTAKE-Gross National Product in 1945 WHICH WAS LESS THAN THEIR TOTAL DEBT!!!

The debt was LARGER than the GNP


Why? World War II.

What happened after that?

The GNP( TOTAL INTAKE OR SALARY?) GREW EACH YEAR

The Debt grew each year

BUT THE DEBT GREW MORE SLOWLY THAN THE GNP!!!


********************************************************

Let us assume that the total debt of the United States< which is at
8,500,000,000,000 now grows at 3% per year--That's a lot of money- a big deficit--that would be 255 Billion A YEAR.

Now, let us assume that the total GNP of the United States, which is at 13,000,000,000,000 grows at 4% per year---That's a lot of money also--a big gain--that would be a growth of 520 Billion a year.

Now, let us see what has happened--

8,500,000,000,000 plus 255,000,000,000 equals 8,755,000,000,000

13,000,000,000,000 plus 520,000,000,000 equals 13,520,000,000,000


IN OTHER WORDS, THE RATIO BETWEEN THE GNP AND THE DEBT IS INCREASING.


If we try to control spending and MORE IMPORTANTLY, NOT RAISE TAXES SO THAT THE GNP CAN BE GROWN FASTER BY LEAVING MONEY IN THE HANDS OF ENTREPRENEURS, THE RATIO CAN CONTINUE TO GROW!!

Bernard,

It appears you and I are going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one, though I do respect you and your position.

I would like to thank you for for keeping the discussion sensible. In all too many threads I've been personally insulted the instant I've dared to disagree with certain A2Kers, which is mostly why I've been scarce around here lately.

A little of both. Try here for a primer on how the stats are manipulated:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/4/141730/3408

But, in short, the gov't has been fudging the unemployment numbers for a long time (it isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it is an incumbency thing, I think) by either manipulating the formulas, de-classifying people as 'seeking work,' using 'seasonal adjustments,' etc., anything to keep the numbers as low as possible.

I will do some more research, but I recall that there have also been adjustments in the 'not seeking work' category in the last 5 years, which account for a few million jobs...

Cycloptichorn

Here are the BLS names and definitions of these six unemployment rates:

U1. Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer as a percentage of the civilian labor force.
U2. Job losers and persons who have completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force.
U3. Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This is the Official Unemployment Rate that is reported monthly in the media.
U4. Total unemployment plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers.
U5. Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
U6. Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

What makes these different rates different?

The short answer is that they measure different things for different purposes. Obviously, all of these measures are percentage measures. They are calculated by dividing some number (the numerator) by some other number (the denominator).

The denominator turns out to be the same for rates U1, U2, and U3; it's the civilian labor force, which includes all civilians who are employed (even just barely), plus unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs. But the denominators in measures U4, U5, and U6 keep getting bigger and bigger because each measure includes additional groups of jobless - or underemployed - people than the measure just before it.

The numerator is different for every one of these measures. The numerator of U1, for example, includes only the long-term unemployed (i.e., folks who have been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer). The official unemployment rate, U3, includes all unemployed persons who are actively seeking work. This most-often-cited measure of unemployment has often been criticized on the grounds that it understates the true extent of workforce underutilization - because it ignores people who are so discouraged that they have quit looking for work and part-timers who would prefer to be employed full time.

Measures U4, U5 and U6 were developed to meet the criticisms leveled at U3, the official rate. The rate that measures the broadest group of underutilized workers is, of course, U6. The numerator includes just everybody who isn't working as much as they would like. So, if you want a measure that tells the grimmest story that can be told, then U6 is the measure for you.

So, what's the state of the national employment situation according to these six measures?



This also doesn't take into effect that the percentage of people seeking work has dropped by half a percent or so in the calculations; it doesn't take into effect our added prison population, it doesn't take into effect those on Disability.

Cycloptichorn