Author Topic: Debt & Deficit --- Bailout & Trillion  (Read 2091 times)

Offline criszt

  • EXCO2011
  • 5th Gear
  • ****
  • Posts: 2166
Re: Bailout hits $8.5 trillion
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2009, 10:59:31 AM »
so wad does the above mean? More money going out of the US than in? Primarily to china?

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2009, 06:05:50 AM »
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Quote
                                       MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES
                                                 (in billions of dollars)
                                               HOLDINGS 1/ AT END OF PERIOD


                       Aug     Jul     Jun     May     Apr     Mar     Feb     Jan     Dec     Nov     Oct     Sep     Aug
Country               2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2008    2008    2008    2008    2008
                     ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------

China, Mainland       797.1   800.5   776.4   801.5   763.5   767.9   744.2   739.6   727.4   713.2   684.1   618.2   573.7
Japan                 731.0   724.5   711.8   677.2   685.9   686.7   661.9   634.8   626.0   625.2   629.6   617.5   630.3
United Kingdom 2/     225.8   219.9   214.0   163.7   152.7   128.1   129.0   123.9   130.9   132.4   133.1   112.8    82.5
Oil Exporters 3/      189.2   189.2   191.2   192.8   189.5   192.0   181.7   186.6   186.2   187.2   176.7   171.2   169.6
Carib Bnkng Ctrs 4/   180.2   193.2   189.7   194.8   204.7   213.6   189.1   176.6   197.5   205.0   203.5   169.3   132.9
Brazil                137.2   138.1   139.8   127.1   126.0   126.6   130.8   133.5   127.0   136.1   141.0   148.3   152.6
Hong Kong             124.7   115.3    99.8    93.2    80.9    78.9    76.3    71.7    77.2    70.6    69.8    65.5    65.8
Russia                121.6   118.0   119.9   124.5   137.0   138.4   130.1   119.6   116.4   108.0   110.8    99.6   104.2
Luxembourg             94.2    92.0   104.1    96.2    97.4   106.0    92.1    87.0    97.3    94.2   100.6   104.5    90.4
Taiwan                 75.9    77.4    77.0    75.7    78.3    74.8    72.6    73.3    71.8    70.2    65.9    63.0    66.2
Switzerland            68.2    68.1    71.5    63.7    64.2    67.7    68.2    62.1    62.3    63.8    62.0    49.7    45.9
Germany                55.2    56.1    53.8    55.1    54.4    54.9    56.5    56.2    56.0    53.8    53.6    51.5    51.8
Singapore              42.0    42.3    40.8    39.6    39.7    39.1    39.3    38.3    40.8    38.7    34.0    32.2    31.9
Korea                  38.7    37.6    36.3    37.4    35.4    33.1    33.3    31.3    31.3    32.7    36.2    40.2    42.1
India                  38.5    38.9    39.3    38.8    38.5    38.2    34.6    32.5    29.2    22.3    18.3    20.3    20.2
Ireland                36.5    38.6    46.3    50.6    49.7    54.7    54.4    50.0    54.3    41.3    35.1    32.9    18.9
France                 35.0    24.6    26.0    25.9    30.6    27.1    16.8    17.9    16.8    18.4    20.5    19.3    21.2
Thailand               33.5    31.4    29.7    26.8    28.5    26.0    39.7    37.2    32.4    33.9    33.6    27.4    30.4
Turkey                 28.7    27.3    27.5    28.8    27.2    30.2    32.4    31.3    30.8    29.0    27.9    31.5    34.3
Mexico                 28.0    27.7    29.5    31.5    35.3    36.2    37.8    34.8    34.8    33.8    32.2    32.5    32.6
Norway                 24.7    28.9    28.7    28.3    27.5    26.2    21.1    21.9    23.1    20.2    11.5    13.2     2.4
Canada                 22.4    20.2    19.0    11.5    13.1    11.9    10.9     9.0     8.2    12.7    14.0    16.0    23.5
Netherlands            21.3    21.5    18.9    16.3    16.5    17.6    16.1    16.8    15.4    15.6    15.7    15.6    16.9
Egypt                  20.4    18.6    17.3    18.6    18.5    18.5    19.1    16.9    17.2    16.8    16.7    15.5    14.5
Israel                 17.7    16.9    18.1    19.0    19.1    19.4    17.4    16.9    18.8    13.8    12.4     8.7     7.6
Italy                  16.9    17.3    16.7    16.7    16.1    16.6    16.4    15.6    16.0    15.9    15.2    11.6    12.9
Sweden                 16.7    16.5    16.5    13.0    12.7    12.5    12.7    12.4    12.7    13.1    13.5    13.6    14.7
Colombia               16.3    14.8    11.8    11.9    11.4    11.2    11.4    11.3    11.1    11.5    11.3     9.9     9.0
Belgium                15.6    15.7    15.7    15.7    15.8    15.4    14.5    15.5    15.9    15.3    15.8    15.4    14.8
Chile                  13.0    13.5    14.3    14.7    15.1    15.5    15.2    15.2    15.2    15.1    15.4    13.4    13.0
Philippines            12.4    11.4    11.6    11.8    12.0    12.4    12.6    11.6    11.7    11.5    12.1    12.0    12.3
Malaysia               11.3    11.9    11.7    12.3    11.6    10.6     8.4     8.0     8.4     8.8     8.6     9.4    10.1
Australia              10.2     9.8     9.9     9.0     8.4     5.8     8.1     7.8     9.3     8.7     9.5     9.0     9.3
All Other             148.6   149.7   147.6   148.6   145.0   150.7   156.7   154.5   147.0   147.4   139.5   128.8   129.9
Grand Total          3448.8  3427.4  3382.1  3292.6  3262.0  3264.7  3161.4  3071.6  3076.3  3036.0  2979.7  2799.5  2688.4

Of which:
 For. Official       2360.1  2346.2  2295.7  2287.5  2253.6  2248.6  2198.1  2165.8  2138.7  2104.1  2063.7  1981.0  1944.8
  Treasury Bills      607.3   606.6   571.9   586.2   530.6   542.7   521.2   486.9   457.9   427.2   360.6   276.8   245.6
  T-Bonds & Notes    1752.8  1739.6  1723.8  1701.3  1723.1  1705.9  1676.9  1678.9  1680.8  1676.9  1703.1  1704.2  1699.2

Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board
October 16, 2009

 1/  Estimated foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury marketable and non-marketable bills, bonds, and notes
     reported under the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system are based on annual
     Surveys of Foreign Holdings of U.S. Securities and on monthly data.
 2/  United Kingdom includes Channel Islands and Isle of Man.
 3/  Oil exporters include Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
     Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria.
 4/  Caribbean Banking Centers include Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Panama.
     Beginning with new series for June 2006, also includes British Virgin Islands.



Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
why it may not be as bad as you think.
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2009, 02:28:54 AM »
Quote
Much of the horrific explosion in the national debt—the deficit soared from $248 billion in 2006 to $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009—can be pinned on cyclical factors. When the economy goes in the tank, it creates a fiscal double whammy, gutting tax receipts and boosting demand for the usual (increasing unemployment benefits) and extraordinary (bailouts, stimulus) government spending programs. Spending rose 18 percent and revenue fell 16.6 percent in fiscal 2009—the worst decline since the 1930s. But as the financial system returned from the brink, banks paid back billions in TARP funds. In late July the Office of Management and Budget dialed back its estimate for the fiscal 2009 deficit from $1.84 trillion in May to $1.58 trillion. The stock-market rally, recovering corporate profits, and an expanding economy have translated into higher-than-expected tax receipts. And so, when the Treasury Department’s Financial Management Service closed the fiscal year in October, the final numbers came out better than expected: a $1.42 trillion deficit, $138 billion less than was forecast in July.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/221272

first read via : http://newsweek.tumblr.com/

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
The Cost of all that Debt
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2009, 02:46:11 AM »

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
Trade Deficit in U.S. Increases by Most Since 1999 (Update2)
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2009, 02:28:40 PM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aN1mKmvVAZp4&pos=1
Quote
Trade Deficit in U.S. Increases by Most Since 1999 (Update2)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Bob Willis

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The trade deficit in the U.S. widened in September by the most in a decade, reflecting rising demand for imported oil and automobiles as the economy rebounded from the worst recession since the 1930s.

The gap grew a larger-than-anticipated 18 percent to $36.5 billion, the highest level since January, from a revised $30.8 billion in August, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Imports surged by the most in 16 years, swamping a gain in exports.

Demand for foreign products may remain elevated in coming months as consumer and business spending improve and companies aim to prevent inventories from collapsing even more. Exports may also rise as expanding economies in Asia and Europe and a weak dollar drive demand for American goods, giving manufacturers such as Dow Chemical Co. a lift.

“Sometimes what looks bad on the surface is actually quite good and I think that’s the case this time around,” said Sal Guatieri, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto. “Exports are growing strongly and imports are turning up because domestic spending has turned the corner.”

The dollar dropped after the report. One euro cost $1.4875 at 8:50 a.m. in New York, up 0.2 percent from late yesterday. The yen climbed to 89.68, up 0.8 percent. Stock-index futures pointed to a gain at the open.

Exceeds Forecasts

The trade gap was projected to widen to $31.8 billion, from an initially reported $30.7 billion in August, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 77 economists. Deficit projections ranged from $28.6 billion to $34.1 billion.

A collapse in world trade earlier this year brought the gap down to $26.4 billion in May, its lowest level since November 1999, as imports plunged even faster than exports. As commerce begins to pick back up, global leaders agree more needs to be done to strengthen the expansion.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other finance ministers at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore this week reiterated a pledge to maintain stimulus efforts “until a durable recovery in private demand is secured.”

Asia is “leading the world” back to recovery, Geithner told reporters at a joint press briefing with his APEC counterparts. President Barack Obama began a swing through Asia today as world leaders work toward a rebalancing that will make global growth more reliant on spending by Asian consumers and businesses and less dependent on their American counterparts.

Imports Jump

Imports climbed 5.8 percent, the most since March 1993, to $168.4 billion. The figures reflected a $4.1 billion increase in imported oil as the cost of a barrel of crude climbed to the highest level since October 2008 and volumes also rose.

Purchases of foreign-made autos and parts surged by $1.7 billion to $16.4 billion, due mainly to a $1.3 billion increase in imports from Canada and Mexico as North American vehicle production picked up. Imports from South Korea also climbed.

The federal “cash for clunkers” auto trade-in program, which expired in late August, generated momentum in car sales and boosted demand for parts and supplies. Automotive inventory restocking is also boosting demand for foreign-made autos and parts.

U.S. sales for South Korea-based Hyundai Motor Co. increased in September for the third month in a row, while Toyota Motor Corp. is boosting production of models such as Corollas and Camry sedans to rebuild its U.S. inventory.

Replenishing Stockpiles

“Our inventories are continuing to recover with a very good pipeline as we move into the fourth quarter,” Robert Carter, Toyota’s North America sales chief, said on a conference call last month.

Exports rose 2.9 percent to $132 billion, the most this year, propelled by sales of civilian aircraft, industrial machines and petroleum products. The dollar this month was down 12 percent from a five-year high reached in March against a trade-weighted basket of currencies from it’s biggest trading partners.

China’s economy grew 8.9 percent in the third quarter from the same period in 2008, the best performance in a year. Exports to the Asian nation were the highest since October, even as imports from China also climbed.

“The economic outlook for the rest of 2009 appears to be stabilizing, with strong growth in Asia Pacific, especially China, and other emerging geographies,” Andrew Liveris, Dow Chemical’s chief executive officer, said in an Oct. 22 statement.

Factory Pickup

Dow’s factories around the world ran at 78 percent of capacity in the third quarter, an increase of 3 percentage points, because of increased demand in developing markets, including China and Brazil, as well as relatively low North American ingredient costs that led to increased exports. The largest U.S. chemical maker yesterday said cost cuts and rising sales will boost earnings more than analysts estimate.

After eliminating the influence of prices, which are the numbers used to calculate gross domestic product, the trade deficit grew to $41.7 billion, the highest since January. The figures suggest the government may revise down their estimate for third-quarter economic growth.

The U.S. is growing again after posting its worst contraction in seven decades. The world’s largest economy expanded at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best performance in two years. Economists surveyed last month forecast a 3 percent rate of growth this quarter.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at bwillis@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 13, 2009 08:52 EST

[tags] Trade Deficit 1999

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
Where is America’s Debt?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2010, 05:07:27 AM »

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
Surprise! The big bad bailout is paying off
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2011, 03:58:09 PM »
Surprise! The big bad bailout is paying off
By Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large July 8, 2011: 5:00 AM ET


via : http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/
Quote
The U.S. government's often maligned $14 trillion intervention not only staved off global collapse - but is making money.

With Doris Burke

FORTUNE -- The bailout of the financial system is roughly as popular as Wall Street bonuses, the federal budget deficit, or LeBron James in a Cleveland sports bar. You hear over and over that the bailout was a disaster, it cost taxpayers a fortune, we didn't really need it, it didn't work, it was a failure. It has become politically toxic, which inhibits reasoned public discussion about it.

But you know what? The bailout, by the numbers, clearly did work. Not only did it forestall a worldwide financial meltdown, but a Fortune analysis shows that U.S. taxpayers are coming out ahead on it -- by at least $40 billion, and possibly by as much as $100 billion eventually. This is our count for the entire bailout, not just the 3% represented by the massively unpopular Troubled Asset Relief Program. Yes, that's right -- TARP is only about 3% of the bailout, even though it gets about 97% of the attention.

A key reason for the rescue's profitability is that the Federal Reserve System has already turned over more than $100 billion of bailout-related income to the Treasury, and is on track to turn over $85 billion more this year and next. That's not something most people include in their math. On the negative side, we're including what may be the first overall cost calculation of a special tax break that's worth tens of billions of dollars to four big bailout recipients. And, of course, we've analyzed reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and other sources.

We'll get to the detailed numbers in a bit. But for now, we'd like to remind you why the bailout exists. The revisionist idea that the bailout is the problem -- rather than excesses in the financial system -- is simply stunning to those of us who watched the financial crisis surface in 2007, when two Bear Stearns hedge funds speculating in mortgage securities collapsed, and reach a crescendo in September 2008, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Many in the financial world applauded Washington's decision to let Lehman go under -- but that applause was quickly replaced by fear as unanticipated consequences of the bankruptcy surfaced.

Lehman's collapse touched off a terrifying run on money market mutual funds when the Reserve Primary Fund announced it could pay holders only 97¢ on the dollar because of Lehman-related losses. Savers who'd considered money funds as safe as federally insured bank deposits stampeded for the exits, pulling out hundreds of billions of dollars. It took federal guarantees of more than $3 trillion of money market fund balances -- bailout! -- to stop this modern-day bank run.

Some hedge funds that used Lehman's London office as their "prime broker" had their assets frozen, setting off a run on prime brokers Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) as U.S. hedge funds pulled out their assets to avoid getting frozen if either firm failed. Goldman and Morgan were close to running out of cash when the government saved them by making them bank companies with access to the Fed's lending facilities. Bailout! Bailout! GE Capital (GE) was having trouble rolling over its borrowings, and was rescued by a government guarantee program. Bailout! Then there was American International Group, the now infamous AIG (AIG), which required a 12-figure rescue.

Had Goldman, Morgan Stanley, GE Capital, AIG, and several giant European banks not gotten bailouts and instead failed, even capital-rich J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) would have gone under, because it wouldn't have been able to collect what these and other players owed it. There would have been trillions in losses, worldwide panic, missed payrolls, and quite likely the onset of Great Depression II. That's why we needed a bailout. And why we got it.

Now that we've relived the history, let's take a stroll through the numbers. Things have turned out far better than expected because the massive government intervention calmed the markets, and Uncle Sam had to make good on only a tiny fraction of the obligations that taxpayers guaranteed. Uncle Sam bought assets at what turned out to be near-bottom prices amid the market panic; the value of Sam's holdings has since soared. The more than $14 trillion of government investments, securities purchases, and loan guarantees -- of which TARP never amounted to more than $411 billion (although it was authorized to spend up to $700 billion) -- stabilized the whole financial system.

So how has this worked out for U.S. taxpayers?

Let's take the costs first.

· The biggest expense by far comes from the rescue of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Or, actually, the rescue of their debtholders -- stockholders have been essentially wiped out.

The $130 billion cost is the money the government has put into Fannie and Freddie ($154 billion) to cover their losses, less the dividends ($24 billion) Fannie and Freddie have paid on the government's preferred stock. The Treasury and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office both expect that $130 billion figure to shrink; Fannie and Freddie have been adding profitable business since 2008, and it should begin to outweigh their losses from the housing bubble. But we're being conservative and counting the full $130 billion.

· Then there's a $35 billion tax expense, which no one else has included in bailout calculations. It's our analysis (with assistance from tax guru Bob Willens) of the taxpayer cost of special IRS rulings that allowed TARP recipients AIG, Citigroup, (C) General Motors, (GM) and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC) to use their tax losses in full, rather than being subject to "change in control" rules designed to stop companies from being taken over for their tax losses. GM got both an IRS ruling and a provision in the 2008 economic stimulus legislation to preserve its losses despite having gone bankrupt.

We estimate that without special treatment, the companies could have used only about $4 billion of their $43 billion of "deferred tax assets" to offset federal income taxes. Now they can use them all. We're estimating the taxpayer cost at $35 billion rather than the full $39 billion because it's not clear when -- or whether -- the companies will earn enough to use all the losses. (The tax breaks have presumably increased the prices of the shares in those companies that the government owns or has sold, because they have made the companies more valuable to investors. That means the higher share prices have decreased the cost of the bailout, though it's impossible to quantify by how much.)

· We're counting the cost of TARP as $19 billion, based on the most recent update by the Congressional Budget Office. That includes $13 billion spent to help homeowners restructure their mortgages, plus projected losses on AIG, GM, and Chrysler, offset by gains in some of TARP's other holdings, primarily in banks. The $19 billion estimate is a big improvement from the CBO's first estimate, $189 billion, in January 2009. That's because TARP's investments have fared better than expected, and its total outlays have been shrinking rapidly. They're down to $104 billion, according to the Treasury, from their aforementioned high of $411 billion.

The plus side

· The biggest and most surprising numbers are the bailout-related profits that the Federal Reserve has turned over to the Treasury, and that we expect it to turn over this year and next.

We're counting these payments as an offset to the bailout's cost because they stem from the Fed's bailout activities. The Fed's increased profits come primarily from income on the $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities it bought in 2008–09 to stabilize credit markets (Quantitative Easing 1), and the $600 billion of Treasury securities it bought in 2010–11 (QE2) to hold down interest rates and raise asset values. Even though QE2 is usually considered "economic stimulus," we're treating it as part of the bailout because rising asset values have helped stabilize the financial system.

The Fed now owns almost $2 trillion more of securities than it did before financial problems surfaced in 2007. A normal financial institution would have had to borrow heavily to add $2 trillion of assets, and interest on that borrowed money would have offset most or all of the income from the added assets. The Fed, though, doesn't have to borrow: It effectively creates money (which has its own problems) to buy the securities. So the Fed's income on its added securities is pure profit.

Each year the Fed turns over most of its annual profit to the Treasury. It's money that the Treasury can spend, and it reduces the federal budget deficit. From 2007 (when the Fed began expanding its balance sheet to combat financial instability) through 2010, the Fed sent a total of $193 billion to the Treasury. In the previous four years it sent the Treasury only $91 billion. We're counting that $102 billion difference as bailout-related profit.

· Most Fed analysts expect the size of the Fed's securities portfolio (and hence its profits) to fall slowly, if at all, this year and next. So we're estimating that the Fed will send $55 billion of bailout-related profits to the Treasury this year, about what it sent in 2010. To be conservative, we're estimating the 2012 bailout profit at only $30 billion.

· The Treasury owns 563 million shares of AIG that it got from the Fed, which extracted them from the insurance giant in 2008 in return for making $85 billion of credit available. Even though AIG was a big TARP recipient, this holding, currently worth about $16 billion, isn't included in TARP's profit-and-loss statement. That's why we're including it here.

· The Treasury says it has made a total of $15 billion from fees for insuring money fund balances, and from the $150 billion of mortgage-backed securities that it owns.

· We estimate that the FDIC has made $8 billion from the difference between the fees it has charged to guarantee borrowings and the losses it has incurred on those guarantees. The FDIC declined to give us a number because some of the guarantees are still outstanding.

Bottom line

Our accounting is unconventional because in some places we count what has happened, in some places we project what's likely to happen, and in some places we've done our own numbers because no others exist. If things break right, taxpayers could come out $100 billion ahead: our $42 billion profit estimate, plus a $25 billion reduction in the Fannie/Freddie cost, $25 billion more in Fed profits, and a reduction in the $19 billion expense we're showing for TARP.

We don't expect any of what we've told you to make the bailout popular -- we're not wild about it ourselves for the same reasons many people dislike it. The government was picking winners and losers. Big Government bailed out Big Finance while letting average taxpayers lose their homes. Creditors of bank companies and AIG got far too good a deal at taxpayer expense. Wall Street is back to paying enormous bonuses (and whining about being demonized), while average Americans, whose tax dollars saved the Street, are still suffering. And, of course, the economy is down 7 million jobs from its peak in 2007.

But something needed to be done when the financial world was on the brink of the abyss, and the government did something. No matter what your views are, you should be happy that taxpayers, almost miraculously, are coming out ahead rather than hundreds of billions of dollars behind.

When our boss assigned us to find out how much the financial rescue cost, we expected to find a monumental loss, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seemed like a bottomless pit. Instead, we discovered that bailout profit payments from the Fed -- which we hadn't previously thought of as a profit center -- are virtually certain to exceed taxpayer losses on Fannie and Freddie. We were surprised -- and pleased -- to discover taxpayers showing a profit on the bailout. We hope that you are too.

This article is from the July 25, 2011 issue of Fortune. Additional reporting by Tory Newmyer.

hmm... at what cost, at who's cost?

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
Re: Debt & Deficit --- Bailout & Trillion
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2011, 06:48:08 AM »
the recent Obama video.

Debt. Debt. and Debt.

it has to be paid, somehow, sometime, to someone.

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2011, 10:51:28 AM »
you hear and read the official debt is 14 odd trillion.

how about 211 trillion?

=============

A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion
by NPR Staff
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion
Quote
August 6, 2011

When Standard & Poor's reduced the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA-plus, the United States suffered the first downgrade to its credit rating ever. S&P took this action despite the plan Congress passed this past week to raise the debt limit.

The downgrade, S&P said, "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

It's those medium- and long-term debt problems that also worry economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. He says the national debt, which the U.S. Treasury has accounted at about $14 trillion, is just the tip of the iceberg.

"We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt," Kotlikoff tells David Greene, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered. "We're focused just on the official debt, so we're trying to balance the wrong books."

Kotlikoff explains that America's "unofficial" payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.
Laurence J. Kotlikoff served as a senior economist on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and is a professor of economics at Boston University.
Courtesy of Boston University

Laurence J. Kotlikoff served as a senior economist on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and is a professor of economics at Boston University.

"If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That's the fiscal gap," he says. "That's our true indebtedness."

We don't hear more about this enormous number, Kotlikoff says, because politicians have chosen their language carefully to keep most of the problem off the books.

"Why are these guys thinking about balancing the budget?" he says. "They should try and think about our long-term fiscal problems."

According to Kotlikoff, one of the biggest fiscal problems Congress should focus on is America's obligation to make Social Security payments to future generations of the elderly.

"We've got 78 million baby boomers who are poised to collect, in about 15 to 20 years, about $40,000 per person. Multiply 78 million by $40,000 — you're talking about more than $3 trillion a year just to give to a portion of the population," he says. "That's an enormous bill that's overhanging our heads, and Congress isn't focused on it."

"We've consistently done too little too late, looked too short-term, said the future would take care of itself, we'll deal with that tomorrow," he says. "Well, guess what? You can't keep putting off these problems."

To eliminate the fiscal gap, Kotlikoff says, the U.S. would have to have tax increases and spending reductions far beyond what's being negotiated right now in Washington.

"What you have to do is either immediately and permanently raise taxes by about two-thirds, or immediately and permanently cut every dollar of spending by 40 percent forever. The [Congressional Budget Office's] numbers say we have an absolutely enormous problem facing us."

let's do the math. is it payable? in one gen, not like Japan's case of a couple of gens.

as at 14T, each taxpayer is on 140K.
by upping it to 211T, each taxpayer will be doing 2110K, that's 2.11 million?!

how the heck would an ordinary person be able to pay off that?

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
John Clarke and Bryan Dawe calculate the cost of the European debt crisis
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2011, 02:50:26 AM »
here's a comedy routine that sums up the situation we are in.

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe calculate the cost of the European debt crisis - A comedy routine.
[youtube]LyePCRkq620[/youtube]
http://youtu.be/LyePCRkq620
Quote
Uploaded by noblecoins on May 29, 2010

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe calculate the cost of the European debt crisis - A comedy routine. It may seemed hilarious but this is actually what's happening. Without all the financial jargon, any layman can understand what is happening to the current economy crisis.

How can broke economies lend money to other broke economies who haven't got any money because they can't pay back the money the broke economy lent to the other broke economy and shouldn't have lent it to them in the first place because the broke economy can't pay back?

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
Debt vs. Equity. Market Capitalization, Asset Value, and Enterprise Value.
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2011, 03:09:34 AM »
[youtube]yQtUyBrRBx4[/youtube]
http://youtu.be/yQtUyBrRBx4
Quote
Uploaded by khanacademy on Feb 1, 2009

Debt vs. Equity. Market Capitalization, Asset Value, and Enterprise Value.

from the award winning Khan Academy.

you see if it make sense later. and compare it to what's happening now.

Offline zuoom

  • Advisor
  • Super Gear
  • *****
  • Posts: 21562
    • CSG - CelicaSG.org
7.7 Trillion dollar Fed bailout
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2011, 03:55:07 AM »
http://rt.com/usa/news/fed-trillion-reserve-bailout-401/

Quote
We knew the last bailout from the Federal Reserve was pretty big, but not until now did we have statistics on the actually tally. If you thought that the $700 billion bailout for TARP was big, get a load of this.

Just exactly how big was the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the banks between the years of 2008 and 2010? Thanks to a Federal Request of Information Act gone fulfilled, America now knows the truth behind a colossal cover-up: almost $8 trillion.

Ever since the Fed stepped in to bail out the biggest banks in the country, Ben Bernanke and company have gone to great lengths to keep the exact details of the transactions a secret, citing that the truth would cause concern for the world financial crisis far greater than what was already at hand, saying in particular that investors would step away from the “too big to fail” banks that were benefiting from the bailout. And while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke went on the record to call the bailouts to even the most “sound institutions” only “marginal,” details of the FOIA request obtained by Bloomberg News now reveals that the Federal Reserve spent nearly half of the entire production output of the US during that span of less than two years — the biggest bailout in the country’s history — while going to great lengths to keep Congress and the American people in the dark.

By March of 2009, the Fed had already dished out $7.77 trillion to save the US financial system, dwarfing other assistance programs several times over. As the financial sector was on the brink of collapse, neither the Fed nor the banks involved came clean with the truth, instead lying through their teeth to keep the total facts a mystery. Until now.

While the banks kept the bailout a secret from Congress, they lobbied to the Legislative Branch to imply more lax governmental regulations on the industry, something that would haven arguably been near impossible had the truth surfaced at the time.

The website Naked Capitalism explains it pretty clearly in not so many words: “The bottom line is everybody close to the process lied like crazy.”

On November 26, 2008, Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis told shareholders that he ran “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” On that very day, BofA was indebted to the Fed something to the tune of nearly $90 billion. Less than two weeks later, the Federal Reserve blew $1.2 trillion total in a single day to bail out the breaking financial institutions.

All the while, of course, banks were borrowing loans at interest rates of as low as 0.01 percent. “No one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates,” writes Bloomberg now.

That’s not the worst part, either. As the Fed continues to operate without oversight from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, further bailouts are guaranteed to keep being generated at the cost of the American taxpayer while a recession still seems imminent — if not already occurring. Critics including presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul have lobbied to abolish the Federal Reserve once and for all. Could the next president help make that dream a reality? In the meantime, don’t be surprised if billions get borrowed at America’s expense minute by minute.

other reports mentioned the 1.2 Trillion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067359/Revealed-The-secret-1-2-TRILLION-bailout-given-banks.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Quote
Revealed: How banks were given secret $1.2 TRILLION bailout
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 10:08 PM on 28th November 2011

The Federal Reserve and America's big banks kept the biggest bail out in U.S. history secret for more than two years, it was claimed today.

A mammoth $1.2 trillion in loans to banks left tottering at the peak of the recession on December 5, 2008 was shelled out to help preserve the status quo on Wall Street.

While assuring the public they were healthy, the banks took tens of billions in emergency government loans.

still, a lot of bailout money.