| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
I lol'd hard.
Total Natioanal Debt = 99 Trillion? Source? (Wikipedia says 10 Trillion; 10% of what you said. As a % of GDP this is half of what it was during WWII)
Please don't copy and paste from Con. articles..... it's not a real discussion then. |
The source has been linked on numerous threads. The Federal Reserve came up with that number. According to the US Comptroller, the total US national debt was over $60 trillion and then $70 trillion several years ago. Links to the US comptroller reporting that number in speeches he gave several years ago have also been linked all over Dave's.
|
It's a terrible figure. The US will probably have to default. Though I had a very long conversation with a hyper-successful hedgie a few weeks ago and he pointed out that Russia defaulted and was back to normal (Russian normal) quickly. I reckon the US should default and reorganize.
Anyways, we know the number of the US. But this is not because the US is unique. I encourage you or anybody to try and find similar data for Canada or China or France etc. They just don't publish it. The problem is universal. Voters want more government services than they are willing to pay for. So the government gives them what they want and push off the payments via accounting gimmicks etc into the future. But the future arrives all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Maybe your bestest university in the world OMG didn't cover concepts like "total liability"...
"we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion." |
Pres. of Dallas Fed, any others please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Maybe your bestest university in the world OMG didn't cover concepts like "total liability"...
"we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion." |
Pres. of Dallas Fed, any others please? |
Gee, why don't you call up the Federal Reserve and ask them to back up their figures.
They try to put everything in the best light for the government, and $99 trillion was the best they can do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
I lol'd hard.
Total Natioanal Debt = 99 Trillion? Source? (Wikipedia says 10 Trillion; 10% of what you said. As a % of GDP this is half of what it was during WWII)
Please don't copy and paste from Con. articles..... it's not a real discussion then. |
The source has been linked on numerous threads. The Federal Reserve came up with that number. According to the US Comptroller, the total US national debt was over $60 trillion and then $70 trillion several years ago. Links to the US comptroller reporting that number in speeches he gave several years ago have also been linked all over Dave's.
|
It's a terrible figure. The US will probably have to default. Though I had a very long conversation with a hyper-successful hedgie a few weeks ago and he pointed out that Russia defaulted and was back to normal (Russian normal) quickly. I reckon the US should default and reorganize.
Anyways, we know the number of the US. But this is not because the US is unique. I encourage you or anybody to try and find similar data for Canada or China or France etc. They just don't publish it. The problem is universal. Voters want more government services than they are willing to pay for. So the government gives them what they want and push off the payments via accounting gimmicks etc into the future. But the future arrives all the time. |
I actually like your idea of a debt jubalee, I think you called it.
Yes, I think that a total default, abrogation of all government promises and debts and starting over with a new government, a gold-backed currency, and a single-tax system at 10% on consumption only shared by all levels of government would allow the country to rebound.
The US would have to dismantle its military empire and restrict is social programs to helping the truly needy with a 10% limit. However, the poor could get more help today as long as we didn't allow the bureaucrats and politicians to suck up all the money as they do now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Maybe your bestest university in the world OMG didn't cover concepts like "total liability"...
"we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion." |
Pres. of Dallas Fed, any others please? |
What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Maybe your bestest university in the world OMG didn't cover concepts like "total liability"...
"we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion." |
Pres. of Dallas Fed, any others please? |
What? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The U.S. has a history of politicized government (etc) positions. No, I don't trust one fed. pres. Do you have another source? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| The U.S. has a history of politicized government (etc) positions. No, I don't trust one fed. pres. Do you have another source? |
You don't deserve another source. Go have another beer instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| You don't deserve another source. |
You............ win? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
I still can't get over the fact that gold has almost no value other than scarcity. You can't eat it, you can't make tools out of it.
How is placing your money in gold any safer if we get a world word economic breakdown. |
If a German owned gold in 1920 and held it through 1950, he had a certain amount of wealth during the good times and the bad times while most other people around him got financially wiped out in 1923 and 1945.
In my opinion, it doesn't even have to just be gold. It can be any hard asset that has value to someone. Personally, I like fruit trees and bushes because they keep producing. If you have your own food source, you won't need to barter away your gold or bottles of Stoli to someone just to eat. You want to be on the other end of that trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
economicmayhem
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Location: Yong In
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://goldprice.org/buying-gold/2007/11/uses-of-gold.html
Consider this. Low estimates state that governments/mostly US has pumped 6 Trillion "paper" currency into the world during this financial crisis. That would buy all the gold the world has EVER SEEN four times over. So if you think $1100/troy oz is high, you ain't seen nothing yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
economicmayhem,
I agree. It's such a small market. It's the same way with silver. I like to keep up with this chart http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/files/Silver_Stocks.xls and both the registered and eligible supplies have been dwindling quite a bit lately. Just a couple of weeks ago, there were 118 million ounces. Multiply that by the $17.20 price of silver and COMEX and that shows how there are actually individuals who have enough money to (in theory) buy it all. The size of the gold and silver markets are tiny relative to the trillions of freshly printed money floating around. The way China has been guying copper and India just bought 200 tons of gold a few days ago, and higher investment sentiment particularly in physical possession, there's so much upside potential with not a whole lot of downside.
I guess the biggest downside is the government trying to seize your personal stash "for the greater good" or "for your own good."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
I still can't get over the fact that gold has almost no value other than scarcity. You can't eat it, you can't make tools out of it.
How is placing your money in gold any safer if we get a world word economic breakdown. |
It might help you if you learned some basic economic history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redhed
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like to keep up my lead reserves in times like this. I can swap it for food and gold both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
