To those that don't know, China has its own debt problems..

[edsinger]

First, I do not like the downgrade as it hurts MY finances. That being said, I hope some good can come out of this. How you ask? Well, the US has LOST something it relied on to finance deficit spending. Now the cost of that will go up. Washington HAS to do something. Although I am losing faith in the American electorate, I still have some HOPE. The real kind of HOPE, the kind were we get rid of ALL of the existing politicians and start over.

China has its own issues, it does not publish its real numbers and although they have a few trillion in cash reserves (mostly US dollars), they have a serious debt problem of their own..

Is the Chinese Economy's Debt Problem As Bad As Greece's? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

"If you take a very broad view of the Chinese government's contingent liabilities rather than explicit debt on the books then the number comes to well over 150 per cent of China's GDP in 2010," according to Victor Shih, a political economist at Northwestern University in the US.

Does China have a debt problem? | Special Report

A Northwestern University’s Professor Victor Shih says China’s real debt total could be 99 percent of GDP. And that estimate could not be disputed because of the lack of transparency in China’s stats.

And another thing to remember, China's rating is only AA-, so what does that tell you?


CHINA, average people that I ask think China owns most of our debt. This is false....

We own most of our debt, foreigners own about 20%.

Food for thought anyway..
​

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The World Bank and Deutsche Bank predict China's economy will pull ahead of the US by 2020... Goldman Sachs predicts it will happen by 2028... JP Morgan predicts it will pull ahead between 2020 and 2025...

China does have their own problems... but China's economy has been consistently growing...

 

[edsinger]

China does have their own problems... but China's economy has been consistently growing...

And that is a fact but at what cost and remember no tranparency....

And other small details, 1 billion plus people to feed, and a higher unemployment than the us.

 

[Magneto]

I read somewhere a few months ago that there are a group of financial experts that think China is nothing more than a "paper tiger" and it cannot sustain it's financial course. They predicted that it would eventually collapse, similar to what Greece has coming.

 

[RockofStrength]

The World Bank and Deutsche Bank predict China's economy will pull ahead of the US by 2020... Goldman Sachs predicts it will happen by 2028... JP Morgan predicts it will pull ahead between 2020 and 2025...

China does have their own problems... but China's economy has been consistently growing...

China's economy grows because it produces a great deal of stuff that our nation, among others, want to buy on the cheap. If we stop doing that, or stop doing that to such a strong degree, is China's economy sustainable?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

China's economy grows because it produces a great deal of stuff that our nation, among others, want to buy on the cheap. If we stop doing that, or stop doing that to such a strong degree, is China's economy sustainable?

It has a lot to do with total production output... the US is producing less and less, while China is slowly producing more and more.

The last times I read estimates, the US accounted for around 20% of the overall global production, with China somewhere around 15%. As the US has slowly shifted towards a "service" industry, China has been ramping up production... and in many cases, our production industry is closing up to move to places like China.

So, even if we as individuals consume less, we will still consume... and the rest of the world will also still consume. Products will be made somewhere, and people somewhere will buy them. Even if our economy gets worse - it is not like people will just stop buying altogether.

Having MANY potential employees that will work for very low wages, China is a vacuum for industrial production. Their factories and industrial complexes have no motivation to leave, since most other countries do not provide anything China does not as far as cheap labor.

Then again, the US has large fertile tracts of land - and our agricultural production is one card we will always hold.

 

[88GT]

I can't speak for the economic side of things, but I did want to comment on something that I see quite frequently around here.

THe idea that getting rid of all the politicians now and starting out with a new crop will makes things better is folly. And completely ignorant of reality. Politicians are a reflection of the electorate they serve. As long as the people believe a particular way, there will be politicians lining up to make promises in return for votes. The key to changing this country is to eliminate the entitlement influence. Anything less is doomed to failure from the start.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I can't speak for the economic side of things, but I did want to comment on something that I see quite frequently around here.

THe idea that getting rid of all the politicians now and starting out with a new crop will makes things better is folly. And completely ignorant of reality. Politicians are a reflection of the electorate they serve. As long as the people believe a particular way, there will be politicians lining up to make promises in return for votes. The key to changing this country is to eliminate the entitlement influence. Anything less is doomed to failure from the start.

Well, our problems are of our own doing, and we deserve the representation we elect... production shifting from our country comes from our own faults... on that I can agree...

I think at the same time, we are never going to become the perfect utopian society. It is unrealistic to believe we can ever totally eliminate the entitlement influence... one part of it is convincing people to give up things they receive for free - and that is a hard sell. The other part is convincing people that carried more than their share of the burden that they should not be taken care of if they fall on hard times.. and that is another hard sell. All of those people have a vote, and as the middle class decays - it becomes an even harder sell.

Let us say that in the next election cycle we elect representatives that do away with social security / medicare etc... not likely, but as a hypothetical.. since those are the largest programs referred to as "entitlement", and to have a major impact they either have to be drastically cut or ended. The political environment will change, and not too far down the road people will elect representatives that put in place another system... it may be different, we may learn some things from our previous system's follies.. hopefully.. but politics generally works in a cycle, and we will never create a form of government that everyone will be happy with.

People will always find a problem to point fingers at ... maybe today it is entitlement... maybe tomorrow it becomes grandma not being able to buy food and medicine. It will always shift, and we will never as a whole come to an agreement that everything is how it should be.

If the middle class continues to decline... and the top 15 percent continue to earn more compared to the bottom 50 percent - which economic group holds the most votes? If we do away with entitlement programs, how would we expect to freeze that political landscape?

 

[88GT]

Well, our problems are of our own doing, and we deserve the representation we elect... production shifting from our country comes from our own faults... on that I can agree...

I think at the same time, we are never going to become the perfect utopian society. It is unrealistic to believe we can ever totally eliminate the entitlement influence... one part of it is convincing people to give up things they receive for free - and that is a hard sell. The other part is convincing people that carried more than their share of the burden that they should not be taken care of if they fall on hard times.. and that is another hard sell. All of those people have a vote, and as the middle class decays - it becomes an even harder sell.

Let us say that in the next election cycle we elect representatives that do away with social security / medicare etc... not likely, but as a hypothetical.. since those are the largest programs referred to as "entitlement", and to have a major impact they either have to be drastically cut or ended. The political environment will change, and not too far down the road people will elect representatives that put in place another system... it may be different, we may learn some things from our previous system's follies.. hopefully.. but politics generally works in a cycle, and we will never create a form of government that everyone will be happy with.

People will always find a problem to point fingers at ... maybe today it is entitlement... maybe tomorrow it becomes grandma not being able to buy food and medicine. It will always shift, and we will never as a whole come to an agreement that everything is how it should be.

If the middle class continues to decline... and the top 15 percent continue to earn more compared to the bottom 50 percent - which economic group holds the most votes? If we do away with entitlement programs, how would we expect to freeze that political landscape?

The solution is obvious. But very few people have the balls to suggest it, let alone follow through with it.

Actually, there is a less "drastic" method that simply holds legislation accountable to the Constitution.

What does the class warfare angle have to do with any of it?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The solution is obvious. But very few people have the balls to suggest it, let alone follow through with it.

Actually, there is a less "drastic" method that simply holds legislation accountable to the Constitution.

What does the class warfare angle have to do with any of it?

What less drastic method than cutting the large entitlement programs?

The "class warfare" angle has everything to do with voter representation - always has, and always will.

 

[edsinger]

THe idea that getting rid of all the politicians now and starting out with a new crop will makes things better is folly. And completely ignorant of reality. Politicians are a reflection of the electorate they serve. As long as the people believe a particular way, there will be politicians lining up to make promises in return for votes. The key to changing this country is to eliminate the entitlement influence. Anything less is doomed to failure from the start.

Well you are so entitled to believe how you wish. In saying a fresh start, I am more inclined to believe it would work but with caveats.

Are you familiar with Tom Clancy's novel "Executive Orders"? This was a drastic event and Congress did start over, and one of the great things is NO lawyers allowed. They had very little time for politics.

They all must go, fresh start.

As for the reflection of the electorate, I would change one simple rule. If you are receiving ANY government aid, you are not allowed to vote. That one part will solve most of these dependency issues.

 

[Boiled Owl]

As for the reflection of the electorate, I would change one simple rule. If you are receiving ANY government aid, you are not allowed to vote. That one part will solve most of these dependency issues.

I as a farmer receiving a subsidy based on the land that I farm, and not because I have a mailbox, wouldn't get to vote. (Remember the LAND is subsidized, not the FARMER) And I think that's a good idea!

Voting should be done based on being a stockholder in America IE: 1 vote for every $500 paid to Uncle. Pay $5000, get 10 votes. Maybe I can vote a few shares for the amount I pay in excess of what I receive?

One more idea: Eliminate political parties and campaigns. Every eligible person in this country who desires to TAKE A TURN running it, puts their name in the lottery. If your number is picked, you take your turn at congress, at senate, etc. Then go home and back to your real job. No lifetime benefits. Only one term. There's 350 Million people here, we do not need career politicians.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

The Tea Party is the fresh start. After only one election, the Tea Party is already a strong voice in Congress to be reckoned with. We are taking our country back, one election at a time.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The Tea Party is the fresh start. After only one election, the Tea Party is already a strong voice in Congress to be reckoned with. We are taking our country back, one election at a time.

Wait, didn't the majority of Tea Party candidates just end up voting on the debt deal?

Weren't they standing firm to not raise the debt ceiling at all, and not willing to vote on anything without the required cuts that did not include revenues?

What happened?

And... their votes on the patriot act?

While many Tea Party politicians do differ from many party Reps... they do not differ all that much when it comes to an actual vote count.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Wait, didn't the majority of Tea Party candidates just end up voting on the debt deal?

Weren't they standing firm to not raise the debt ceiling at all, and not willing to vote on anything without the required cuts that did not include revenues?

What happened?

And... their votes on the patriot act?

While many Tea Party politicians do differ from many party Reps... they do not differ all that much when it comes to an actual vote count.

They are smart enough to realize you can't call the shots from one house of Congress - you take what you can get. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, there wouldn't even have been a debate - Obongo would have got another blank check.

One election, we have gridlock. Gridlock is good when you have a socialist president. Next election - we take both houses of Congress and the White House, and then WE call the shots.

 

[firehawk1]

They are smart enough to realize you can't call the shots from one house of Congress - you take what you can get. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, there wouldn't even have been a debate - Obongo would have got another blank check.

One election, we have gridlock. Gridlock is good when you have a socialist president. Next election - we take both houses of Congress and the White House, and then WE call the shots.

Kind of the same thing I've been saying for awhile. You are NOT going to get it all in one shot. IF and it is a HUGE IF we can turn this Titanic of a mess around it is going to take time. As far as the Tea Party influence, we will see if this was a tactical "retreat" while planning and hoping for a major victory in 11/12.

Somehow I have my doubts though.

 

[justjoe]

it will take two major things to even start to right the ship of state: term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Something that the entrenched pols will fight to the bitter end. The only way to start to have representatives that listen to the will of the people and have the political will, read intestinal fortitude, to make the hard decisions is to have term limits. The only thing that will stop the mad spending by the government bureaucracy is a balanced budget amendment that will force changes to the way they access OUR money. Just my

 

[firehawk1]

Personally I don't put much stock in a balanced budget ammendment. It's easy to balance a budget, don't have enough revenue to balance it, raise taxes. There problem solved, the budget is balanced. And you know THAT'S what they'll do.

I do agree with term limits.

 

[CarmelHP]

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken in The Divine Afflatus (1917)

But the fools still keep coming up with them. See the approximately half dozen examples preceding this post. It's too hard keeping a watch on government so let's keep coming up with "god in a box" gimmicks to do it for us.

 

[eric001]

China has some potentially REALLY serious problems of their own in the very near future that I believe are not figured into their financial status of today--firstly, their health care costs can't help but skyrocket: as their production grows, their in-city and near-city pollution levels are so bad that living within one of their big cities cuts your life expectancy IN HALF. Secondly, China's agricultural stability is already declining, as they are suffering from massive desertification due to over-farming...and this will only accelerate as their population demands more and more food. Their current solution? Irrigation using rapidly depleting groundwater. In the next few decades, China's economy may well be in extremely serious trouble from either or both of these factors.

Of course, with the world economy being so prevalently linked to national economies, our financial troubles are sure to affect them, and their future troubles are sure to affect us as well. I hope by the time their economy starts to go critical, our debt issues are back under control!!!

Kind of makes that old Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" all the more scary the more you think about it.