I am of firm opinion that the United States needs to do the same thing. Refuse to pay the debts to foreign bankers. Choose carefully for diplomatic reasons and defend with our military against the rest.

Goddammit! STOP THROWING MONEY AT THINGS!
As a real socialist let me say
URDOINITWRONG!

Even money says the portion they are defaulting on is what they owe us.

That's an invadin'

Jaylectrucuty, You have no idea of what would happen to our economy if we did this do you? Do you think that no other country in the last hundred years has attempted that?

rbabe1485: Jaylectrucuty, You have no idea of what would happen to our economy if we did this do you? Do you think that no other country in the last hundred years has attempted that?

Is your misspelling of my login name a subtle joke that I'm not getting?

Anyway, I'm just saying that if we as citizens can play games with our credit, why can't we as a country play games with the rest of the world?

/last post before I go out, but I will read this thread later

Well it is not the question if you can or can't play games. We as a country can play games. The question is what will happen when we play the game... The typo is a joke that is so subtle that I didn't get it myself :(.

jaylectricity: rbabe1485: Jaylectrucuty, You have no idea of what would happen to our economy if we did this do you? Do you think that no other country in the last hundred years has attempted that?

Is your misspelling of my login name a subtle joke that I'm not getting?

Anyway, I'm just saying that if we as citizens can play games with our credit, why can't we as a country play games with the rest of the world?

/last post before I go out, but I will read this thread later

Look where citizens playing games with their credit got them.

Anyhow its not like the United States has the army to fight off invaders when they come to repossess their monies, as the US has been in wars for the majority of this presidency.

GoodasGold: That's an invadin'

No blood for guinea pigs!

I understand the impulse...

But sooner of later there will be an unrelated pretext for war, preceded by a storm of media propaganda against him. I think I recognize the story line by now.

I wouldn't mind if the world repossessed New Jersey.

jaylectricity: I am of firm opinion that the United States needs to do the same thing. Refuse to pay the debts to foreign bankers. Choose carefully for diplomatic reasons and defend with our military against the rest.

You're creating a false dilemma here: In your mind, other countries would either shut up or invade the US.

What would really happen is that everyone would dump their T-notes as fast as possible, investor confidence would fall out of the sky, the US dollar would crash through the floor and the euro would end up becoming the new reserve currency.

You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

jaylectricity: rbabe1485: Jaylectrucuty, You have no idea of what would happen to our economy if we did this do you? Do you think that no other country in the last hundred years has attempted that?

Is your misspelling of my login name a subtle joke that I'm not getting?

Anyway, I'm just saying that if we as citizens can play games with our credit, why can't we as a country play games with the rest of the world?

/last post before I go out, but I will read this thread later

My point is using the military to prop up a failing economy will not work.

A few things about our debt.
As of November 19, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.6 trillion.
Our national debt is about 27th in the world.
A total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.
This is a huge amount of our current economy and the world in general.
So let us talk about this idea of yours.
The countries we owe the most to are China and Japan. They own about 45% of tbills and tbonds between the two. Now I assume we would still pay them for diplomatic reasons. So let us take them out of the equation.
Next up is the UK. They own about 12%. Let us also for sake of argument take that off the table.

The next country up is Brazil at about 5%. After that the next biggest is Luxembourg they have about 3.5%. Russia at roughly 2.5%.
No one else holds anything over 2 percent. Where do you draw the line? Is it the amount they own? Or are you suggesting to only stiff the countries that are unable to use their military force against us? Let us for discussion sake use Brazil, Russia and Luxembourg as our countries of example.

ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy.

Anyways, the US defaulting would essentially crash our economy into the third world for a period with us unable to purchase anything outside of the country.

Our debt spending right now is propped up on the security that the countries that own most of it can't afford to see us fail. Japan because we provide most of their security and they're economy is so overheated they lend us money simply to keep inflation in check. China because the US produces much of the world's food and they've farked up their water tables so much they're incapable of supporting enough crops

Wasn't Columbia good friends with Venezuela?

Colombia.

PhysicsJunky: ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy...

The wealth of opinions I've heard on all things economic lately - and not here, but places where people are actually qualified - has lead me to believe that economics is right up there with psychology as far as being a science. I mean, we know and understand some basic principles, but there's far more no one understands, and perhaps never will to the degree that it would allow us to predict future actions.

Argh2: PhysicsJunky: ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy...

The wealth of opinions I've heard on all things economic lately - and not here, but places where people are actually qualified - has lead me to believe that economics is right up there with psychology as far as being a science. I mean, we know and understand some basic principles, but there's far more no one understands, and perhaps never will to the degree that it would allow us to predict future actions.

Economics is for people who can't hack the business classes, the way physics is where failed mathematicians end up.

jjorsett: Argh2: PhysicsJunky: ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy...

The wealth of opinions I've heard on all things economic lately - and not here, but places where people are actually qualified - has lead me to believe that economics is right up there with psychology as far as being a science. I mean, we know and understand some basic principles, but there's far more no one understands, and perhaps never will to the degree that it would allow us to predict future actions.

Economics is for people who can't hack the business classes, the way physics is where failed mathematicians end up.

Business and economics are not the same. A businessman has much different goals than an economist. Oftentimes a businessman's gain is a loss for the economy. Especially lately.

Wasn't this the sort of thing Rafael Correa promised when he took office? They aren't refusing to pay because they can't afford it - they are refusing to pay because they believe that the country was saddled with debt illegally by corrupt former government officials and imperialist foreign businesses.

Sabyen91: Business and economics are not the same. A businessman has much different goals than an economist. Oftentimes a businessman's gain is a loss for the economy. Especially lately.

And even more often times a businessman's gain is a gain for the economy. The ugly truth is that enormous businesses are often corrupt and use the government to line their pockets, expand their markets, reduce labor costs, etc. but most businesses (small businesses) greatly benefit the economy. Small businesses do heaps for this (and every) country, and that's what we need more of. Like the great free market folks have said - many small firms, not a few enormous firms.

Speaking of the current economy, there was a 19th century economist who first noticed that as time goes on there are fewer, larger businesses - and at every recession or depression, the big guys eat up the smaller guys. This means that greater and greater numbers of folks get laid off in each successive recession because bigger and bigger businesses fail. He thought that these eventually enormous numbers of pissed-off, unemployed folks would get sick of their lot and rise up. I think his name was Karl something or other. Fortunately, history has shown us that as long as government props up big business, that will never happen.

Course I believe there's a middle ground - strict government regulation on big business, and widespread support of small business.

Argh2: PhysicsJunky: ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy...

The wealth of opinions I've heard on all things economic lately - and not here, but places where people are actually qualified - has lead me to believe that economics is right up there with psychology as far as being a science. I mean, we know and understand some basic principles, but there's far more no one understands, and perhaps never will to the degree that it would allow us to predict future actions.

They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing.

I see the basic problem with economics as that it's impossible to do a proper controlled experiment to test theories. You can't create two separate identical economies and vary one thing to compare the effect.

So that makes economics not a true science in some people's eyes.

Imbrifer: Wasn't this the sort of thing Rafael Correa promised when he took office? They aren't refusing to pay because they can't afford it - they are refusing to pay because they believe that the country was saddled with debt illegally by corrupt former government officials and imperialist foreign businesses.

Sabyen91: Business and economics are not the same. A businessman has much different goals than an economist. Oftentimes a businessman's gain is a loss for the economy. Especially lately.

And even more often times a businessman's gain is a gain for the economy. The ugly truth is that enormous businesses are often corrupt and use the government to line their pockets, expand their markets, reduce labor costs, etc. but most businesses (small businesses) greatly benefit the economy. Small businesses do heaps for this (and every) country, and that's what we need more of. Like the great free market folks have said - many small firms, not a few enormous firms.

Speaking of the current economy, there was a 19th century economist who first noticed that as time goes on there are fewer, larger businesses - and at every recession or depression, the big guys eat up the smaller guys. This means that greater and greater numbers of folks get laid off in each successive recession because bigger and bigger businesses fail. He thought that these eventually enormous numbers of pissed-off, unemployed folks would get sick of their lot and rise up. I think his name was Karl something or other. Fortunately, history has shown us that as long as government props up big business, that will never happen.

Course I believe there's a middle ground - strict government regulation on big business, and widespread support of small business.

I am not talking about small businesses. They do not have much of a voice in todays government. I am talking about the corporatist environment we have now. When the SBA is giving loans to Dell we know that small businesses are kinda getting farked.

Erebus1954: Argh2: PhysicsJunky: ManicParroT:
You can't bully your way out of the laws of economics.

Very true. But as it stand the people who have the most vocal ideas concerning economics couldn't sit through a graduate level course in them. Notably once you start getting into markets and money policy...

The wealth of opinions I've heard on all things economic lately - and not here, but places where people are actually qualified - has lead me to believe that economics is right up there with psychology as far as being a science. I mean, we know and understand some basic principles, but there's far more no one understands, and perhaps never will to the degree that it would allow us to predict future actions.

They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing.

I see the basic problem with economics as that it's impossible to do a proper controlled experiment to test theories. You can't create two separate identical economies and vary one thing to compare the effect.

So that makes economics not a true science in some people's eyes.

Except that the US DOES try to test theories by using countries like Peru and Iraq as guinea pigs.

Sabyen91: I am not talking about small businesses. They do not have much of a voice in todays government. I am talking about the corporatist environment we have now. When the SBA is giving loans to Dell we know that small businesses are kinda getting farked.

Fair enough, just wanted to make the distinction :)

Erebus1954: So that makes economics not a true science in some people's eyes.

I look at Economics how I look at Machiavelli. Both are products of their era and are used by the ruling folks to justify their actions. Both have some basis in functional reality, but completely ignore fundamental human social actions and relationships. Both are more 'miss' than 'hit', but both are/were still promoted as wise science of their times.

/Has a degree in economics
//Used to teach economics

Imbrifer: Sabyen91: I am not talking about small businesses. They do not have much of a voice in todays government. I am talking about the corporatist environment we have now. When the SBA is giving loans to Dell we know that small businesses are kinda getting farked.

Fair enough, just wanted to make the distinction :)

Erebus1954: So that makes economics not a true science in some people's eyes.

I look at Economics how I look at Machiavelli. Both are products of their era and are used by the ruling folks to justify their actions. Both have some basis in functional reality, but completely ignore fundamental human social actions and relationships. Both are more 'miss' than 'hit', but both are/were still promoted as wise science of their times.

/Has a degree in economics
//Used to teach economics

21 undergrad credits of economics here, a long time ago.

Phil Moskowitz

Great book. If even half of it is true it's pretty damn scary.

You used to be cool China, what happened?