U.S. vs. The World

[Camaero]

THE U.S. ECONOMIC MAP VS. THE WORLD

Yesterday, the market capitalization of Chinese state-owned oil company, PetroChina, hit $1 trillion -- eclipsing U.S.-based rival Exxon as the world's most valuable company. Last night, at a lecture in Manhattan, I heard George Soros predict (yet again) that the unraveling of the U.S. economy had finally begun. Last week, a London-based financial newsletter called the United States “the next Argentina” -- suggesting that the U.S. economy's destiny was to echo the fate of Argentina -- a formerly prosperous nation that descended into poverty and economic chaos. It seems that anytime financial markets have a bad week or two, the global financial press readily hitches itself to the doomsday bandwagon by cheerfully predicting the demise of the U.S. economy.

At times like this, it's worth reminding ourselves that we've been here before. In the 1970s, Americans grew up with two myths. First, that the Soviet Union would dominate the U.S. militarily; second, that the Japanese would dominate the U.S. economically. With the Soviet Union erased from the map, and the Japanese stock market below levels it traded at 17 years ago, both fears seem almost quaint. Yet today, the conventional wisdom that Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- the BRIC countries -- are set to dominate the United States is just as prevalent.

The U.S. Economic Map: Size Matters

In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel. But look behind the headlines, and the numbers tell a different story. The U.S. economy grew by 3.9% in the credit turmoil-ridden third quarter -- following a 3.1% jump in the second quarter. That means that the United States added the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia to its economy just since the beginning of April. And the fact that the World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. economy the most competitive economy in the world last week got little press. And even when it did, the #1 ranking of the United States was explained away as a statistical mirage.

This is not to say that the U.S. economy is in ship shape. But with all of the talk about China and India dominating our economic futures, it's worth reminding ourselves where these new economic challengers stand in comparison to the United States today. Despite the high economic growth rates of developing nations, the United States is by far the world's wealthiest nation as measured by GDP -- the broadest measure of economic wealth. And the rest of the world isn't even close. This year, U.S. GDP is projected to be $13.22 trillion. That means that the U.S. economy is as large as the next four-largest economies in the world -- Japan, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom -- combined.

The map below -- originally published here (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/1689290:1719322453:m:1:83861553:FDD53E403C1E2C740A 2EEBDBDB6CAA04) -- puts the size of the United States' global rivals in perspective. On the map, the name of each U.S. state is replaced by a country, whose GDP equals approximately that U.S. state's GSP (gross state product.) A quick glance at the map leads to some fascinating -- and unexpected -- comparisons.

http://www.theglobalguru.com/images/GDP_map.gif

Standing alone as a country, California would be the eighth-largest economy in the world and approximately the size of France. Texas' economy is half the size of California's and its GSP compares to that of Canada. Florida's GSP is approximately the size of Asian tiger South Korea. Illinois' economy is approximately the size of Mexico. Ohio's economy is roughly the size of Australia's. Tennessee's GSP is the size of Saudi Arabia; Nevada, the size of Ireland; Alabama's economy is the size of Iran. Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States, is approximately the size of Pakistan's economy.

And what about the United States' nearest rivals? Germany and China -- #3 and #4 on the list of the world's largest economies -- are smaller than the economies of Texas and California combined. India's $800 billion economy is on par with Florida. Brazil, as we see on the map, is comparable to New York. Russia's economy is about the size of New Jersey (or Texas).

The U.S. Economic Map: Two Caveats

Not surprisingly, reactions to the map have been mixed. The first criticism is that the map is based on nominal GDP -- how much wealth is generated in dollar terms -- and not how many goods and services those dollars buy. Economists sometimes use “purchasing power parity” (PPP) when comparing the size of global economies. Because prices for goods tend to be lower in developing countries, this measure makes poorer countries appear wealthier than they really are. But in taking a birds-eye view of wealth generation in the global economy, that approach makes little sense. Think of PPP as similar to a “cost of living adjustment” on a country level. Within the United States, $50,000 in Kansas buys you a lot more than it does in Manhattan. But as a measure of wealth in absolute terms, having $50,000 in your bank account is the same no matter where you live in Kansas or Calcutta (Kolkata).

Second, the map does not adjust for population. California and Texas have a combined population of 60 million, while China's population is 1.3 billion. This has huge implications. Let's say China does become the largest economy in the world in 20 years time. Yet, because of its large population, even if it continues growing at its current pace (a huge assumption), by 2050 it will only be as wealthy as former Communist Hungary is in 2007.

The U.S. Economic Map: The Past... and The Future

In 1790, the United States was a new, tiny nation of 4 million, about the size of Ireland today. Europe's population was 180 million, while India's was 190 million and China's was 320 million. Only seven cities had a population of 5,000 or more; just 12 had a population above 2,500. The United States had an agricultural economy with practically no factories. By 1885, the United States was #1 in the world in manufacturing. It produced almost 30% of the world's manufactured goods to outpace both the British Empire and the spanking new Germany. Into the 21st century, the cutting edge of global industries -- whether Silicon Valley, Hollywood, or Wall Street -- are still products of the U.S economic experiment.

Underestimating the U.S. economy has become the new global financial sport. Yet the Japanese economy has not matched U.S. growth rates for at least the last decade. Europe celebrates triumphantly when its growth rate hits 2.5%. And for all the press they generate, China and India rank 34th and 48th, respectively in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index. The world has been counting out the United States as far as I can remember. The U.S. economic map provides a vivid reminder of just where the U.S. stands.

Nicholas A. Vardy
http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=171&offer=GURU001


I thought it was interesting.

[SUBMAN1]

I've been preaching this for ages on this forum, but I still get shot down with people saying CHina or whomever outproduces the US, yadda yadda yadda. ANyway, same story, different day. Just wait a while and someone will tell you that regardless of what you post here or your story, some country is outdoing the US.

-S

[Chock]

But as a measure of wealth in absolute terms, having $50,000 in your bank account is the same no matter where you live in Kansas or Calcutta (Kolkata).

Unless you extrapolate that into a billion, and then take this (possibility) into account, in which case, it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

The term billion in the US refers to 'one thousand million', whereas, pretty much everywhere else on the globe, it is taken to mean 'one million million', which is a rather significantly larger figure. Now whether or not that is how the above OP calculations were made, I do not know, but if it was a direct comparison of all the nations own reported figures for their GP, it does mean that there could be a rather obvious thing that has been overlooked by the original calculator of the map if he or she was in the US. Not saying that's the case, but it would not be the first time such a mistake has been made.

:D Chock

[Letum]

But as a measure of wealth in absolute terms, having $50,000 in your bank account is the same no matter where you live in Kansas or Calcutta (Kolkata).
Unless you extrapolate that into a billion, and then take this (possibility) into account, in which case, it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

The term billion in the US refers to 'one thousand million', whereas, pretty much everywhere else on the globe, it is taken to mean 'one million million', which is a rather significantly larger figure. Now whether or not that is how the above OP calculations were made, I do not know, but if it was a direct comparison of all the nations own reported figures for their GP, it does mean that there could be a rather obvious thing that has been overlooked by the original calculator of the map if he or she was in the US. Not saying that's the case, but it would not be the first time such a mistake has been made.

:D Chock

Oh! me! me! I'm on the case!

*gets out calculator*


Stand by.............

All added up, the maps is somewhat accurate, the US comes out a little worse than it should.

[SUBMAN1]

Unless you extrapolate that into a billion, and then take this (possibility) into account, in which case, it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

The term billion in the US refers to 'one thousand million', whereas, pretty much everywhere else on the globe, it is taken to mean 'one million million', which is a rather significantly larger figure. Now whether or not that is how the above OP calculations were made, I do not know, but if it was a direct comparison of all the nations own reported figures for their GP, it does mean that there could be a rather obvious thing that has been overlooked by the original calculator of the map if he or she was in the US. Not saying that's the case, but it would not be the first time such a mistake has been made.

:D ChockAny person with half a brain can see that this mistake was not made. Besides, if it were, that would mean the US would have the worlds worst GDP - uhhh hello?

Are you just screwing with us Chock because I wrote that someone would try to say something different? Ha ha. Very funny.

See Camaero! There is a joker in every group! Case proven and closed.

-S

[Subnuts]

Damn.

I knew there was a reason why so many conservatives hate California. It's really France in disguise. :huh:

[CCIP]

I laughed at the map at first (come on, it's amuzing to see Uzbekistan THERE), but it actually makes a lot of sense.

I'm surprised by the placement of Russia and Canada, to the latter's credit but with disappointment in former.

[SUBMAN1]

Damn.

I knew there was a reason why so many conservatives hate California. It's really France in disguise. :huh:Man - you spelled it wrong - Kalifornia! Get it right already.

-S

[The WosMan]

Good read sir. The only reason Soros keeps predicting the collapse of the USA is because he is actively trying to fund that collapse. Both George and his father were traitors to their own people. The guy also claims the rich should pay more taxes but he keeps all of his money in tax-free overseas accounts.

[Skybird]

Of course this map, while superficially true, is leaving out a lot of perspectives from which to look at the terms of economy, and national wealth. Jobs, inflation, quality of work, distribution patterns of wealth inside the community, wages, credit levels come to mind. the GDP alone is like a mean value in statistics, maybe: a rough generalization of the characteristics of a national economy being thrown into one pot and mixed until there is only one colour left. Like a mean value is of little worth if additional descriptive data like for example variance, and quality analysis like reliability and validity calculations are not given, the GDP alone says nothing about how it's value is being acchieved, and if it is "real" value indeed, produced by solid financial self-power - or being pruduced on tick, for example. This is not meant to downtalk the opening posting, I just want to raise awareness for why it is necessary to have a wider perspective if one wishes to assess the strength or weakness of the american economy. the initial assumption, that it was said that the american economy is "weak", however is a misunderstanding - at least as far as maybe my postings of the past are aimed at. Please note that there is a difference between saying for example "the economy is weak", and "the economy is vulnerable". I never said the first, but in various contexts said the latter, especially with regard to money traficking and foreign investement levels, and the national debts.

Well, I do not wish to dive deeper into it, but I stumbled over this article

http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ausgaben/2006/nr49-vom-4122006/wollen-die-usa-krieg-fuehren-gegen-ihre-kreditoren-anstatt-die-schulden-zu-bezahlen/

from The Privateer from Novembre 2006 (for your reference http://www.the-privateer.com/ ), which unfortunately is translated into German and quoted in a swiss essay. I tried to pick it at the Privateer's homepage, only to learn that they are a subscriptiuon site and thus I cannot access their library to give you the English original.

However, for whatever it is worth, those of you being fluent in German, may see the wider perspective in it - and how far-reaching the dependancy between the US and the rest of the global economy is.

What I want to illustrate is: that you can have a high GDP, and being financially vulnerable and strategically highly dependant at the same time. this does not make the starting posting wrong. It just means that it is only one part of the complete picture.

[Sailor Steve]

Damn.

I knew there was a reason why so many conservatives hate California. It's really France in disguise. :huh:Man - you spelled it wrong - Kalifornia! Get it right already.

-S
I've lived there. It's actually Cantafordya.

[The WosMan]

Of course this map, while superficially true, is leaving out a lot of perspectives from which to look at the terms of economy, and national wealth. Jobs, inflation, quality of work, distribution patterns of wealth inside the community, wages, credit levels come to mind. the GDP alone is like a mean value in statistics, maybe: a rough generalization of the characteristics of a national economy being thrown into one pot and mixed until there is only one colour left. Like a mean value is of little worth if additional descriptive data like for example variance, and quality analysis like reliability and validity calculations are not given, the GDP alone says nothing about how it's value is being acchieved, and if it is "real" value indeed, produced by solid financial self-power - or being pruduced on tick, for example. This is not meant to downtalk the opening posting, I just want to raise awareness for why it is necessary to have a wider perspective if one wishes to assess the strength or weakness of the american economy. the initial assumption, that it was said that the american economy is "weak", however is a misunderstanding - at least as far as maybe my postings of the past are aimed at. Please note that there is a difference between saying for example "the economy is weak", and "the economy is vulnerable". I never said the first, but in various contexts said the latter, especially with regard to money traficking and foreign investement levels, and the national debts.

Well, I do not wish to dive deeper into it, but I stumbled over this article

http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ausgaben/2006/nr49-vom-4122006/wollen-die-usa-krieg-fuehren-gegen-ihre-kreditoren-anstatt-die-schulden-zu-bezahlen/

from The Privateer from Novembre 2006 (for your reference http://www.the-privateer.com/ ), which unfortunately is translated into German and quoted in a swiss essay. I tried to pick it at the Privateer's homepage, only to learn that they are a subscriptiuon site and thus I cannot access their library to give you the English original.

However, for whatever it is worth, those of you being fluent in German, may see the wider perspective in it - and how far-reaching the dependancy between the US and the rest of the global economy is.

What I want to illustrate is: that you can have a high GDP, and being financially vulnerable and strategically highly dependant at the same time. this does not make the starting posting wrong. It just means that it is only one part of the complete picture.

Man, I only have my BA in BS but you have your doctorate in BS.

[Skybird]

When I want to talk to you, wosMan, I let you know. Your constant hidden offendings of me and of people disagreeing with you becomes a bit annoying. Having been on the receiving end of your arrogance three times in as many days, I think, does not make you more sympathetic to me. One waste gate per board is enough, one would think.


@ all others.
I found the translated text via Google.

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=179


Will The US Wage War Against Their Creditors Instead of Paying Their Debts?


by William S. Buckler, Australia

In a recent TV interview, perhaps in a moment of inattention, British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with the interviewer’s statement that the situation in Iraq was a “disaster”. The 10 Downing Street media crew has been trying to explain away his agreement ever since.

The Cost Of The Bush Wars

Congressional Research Service figures put the total cost of the Iraq occupation, Afghanistan and other war on terror activities at $US 507 Billion. The US Afghan campaign has cost at least $US 88 Billion. Iraq accounts for the rest of the costs, so far. These costs have passed the inflation-adjusted cost of the Korean war which was $US 361 Billion. Next year, it will almost certainly pass Vietnam’s $US 531 Billion and trail only the US (again inflation-adjusted) cost of fighting World War II.

Cut And Run – GOP Style

The new Democratic majority in Congress will have to face the more than $US 460 Billion in unfinished US military budget business. The present lame duck Republican majority in Congress is aiming to simply pass continued spending resolutions instead of signing their names to the bills. This means that the Republican party has done a cut and run from its own fiscal responsibilities for the wars which their party’s President has started. That makes it the Democrats’ problem when they arrive in January 2007.In early 2007, President Bush will send Congress a bill that could exceed $US 130 Billion for his continuing wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Living In Reality Disconnected Times

Across the English-speaking world, we are living in morally absurd times. The creators of this absurdity are three men - George Bush, Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard who sent a small team of Aussie diggers to Iraq. These men are now drenched in human blood. Their invasion of Iraq and their occupation there has turned that land between the two rivers of Mesopotamia into a charnel house.
Whether one takes the Lancet study of 655,000 dead in Iraq, the Iraqi government’s latest estimate of 150,000 dead or George Bush’s estimate of about 30,000 Iraqi dead (in a public statement made close to a year ago) – the fact remains that these men now survey a field of wreckage and death.
Why then are these men still treated by civil society with politeness, even respect, as Heads of State and government in the English-speaking world? In reality, these men created all this vast carnage.
Reality Disconnect –

War There But «Peace» Here

Living in the English-speaking world’s civil societies – specifically in the US, Britain or Australia, it is as if there are no wars at all except on the sanitised news. People go about all their daily affairs as if there was no continuing carnage in the Middle East. These people face none of the war taxes or rationing which normally accompany any war. Nor is there a draft, although one is being talked about in the US. In sane economic times, a government fighting a war must constrict private consumption so it can use all these resources. It must increase taxes, draft young men and women and decree wartime mandatory work.

Endless Foreign Wars On Global Credit

On Sunday, November 26, the US war in Iraq war will enter its 1347th day, thus exceeding the length of the entire US involvement in the Second World War. There is still no end in sight for the two wars the US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economically, the Bush Administration is funding its wars not with increased taxes but with stupendous borrowing as its budget deficits show. The US economy, the civil economy, is funding itself too with its own stupendous borrowing as the huge increase in US private debts also shows. The combination of these two streams of borrowing shows up in the US trade and current account deficits with the rest of the world which are in their turn being funded by China, India and nearly all the rest of the world’s “developing” countries and “third world” economies. Historically, these new money flows are a grand reversal from former times. It used to be the capital rich nations which exported their capital to the less developed nations. Today, the nations poor in real capital are reexporting the their earnings from their exports to the supposedly capital “rich” USA.

The US Danger Point - Money Flows

The Treasury Department has stated that net long-term capital flows into the US fell to $US 65.1 Billion in September from a revised $US 114.4 Billion in August. The US trade deficit narrowed by 6.8 percent in September, totalling $US 64.3 Billion. This is the figure to watch! In September, enough fresh money flowed into the US financial system to fund that month’s trade deficit. But when that changes and insufficient foreign funds flow into the US to fund its external deficits, the alarm bells will start ringing all over the financial world. At that point, the Bush Administration cannot fund its external wars nor can the American consumer fund his or her consumption. When an actual outflow of foreign funds now placed inside the US begins, then financial, monetary and economic havoc are certain to follow.
Any substantial outflow of foreign funds would lead to an instant tightening of credit conditions inside the US. When a lot of the present foreign holders of US Dollars decide to leave, their selling of the US Dollar would lead to a fall in its international value. In economic terms, the Fed would be faced with the alternative of defending the US Dollar with higher interest rates and sending the US civil economy into an accelerating recession – or defending the internal US economy by lowering interest rates which would accelerate the flight of foreign capital even further and place the US Dollar at an even steeper global risk. This is already an unavoidable situation.

A Global Warning Note

The September net long-term foreign capital inflows were not enough to cover for the US current account deficit, which has been running at about $US 70 Billion a month. In September, the US was in deficit in terms of the flow of international financing for its double deficits – the current account deficit and the trade deficit. This is another version of reality disconnect – this time in the field of US finance.
Were anybody to look for the root cause of all this, as The Privateer does, it isn’t hard to find. The Bush Administration has raised the ceiling on the US natio2nal debt from $US 5.95 TRILLION in 2001 to $US 8.97 TRILLION in 2006. That’s an increase of over $US 3 TRILLION or 51 percent in five years. The wonder here is that people in Washington thought that this “policy” of debt could continue indefinitely.

Straight From The Horse’s Mouth

They do tell you. But they always hide it in the small print. A recent report by the New York Fed has warned that each of the six recognised recessions since 1968 has been preceded by the yield on 10-year US Treasuries falling below 3-month yields for a period lasting longer than three months.
The full crunch hits 12 months later as the delayed effects of monetary tightening. “There have been no false signals” – the Fed report said. The US yield curve has now been negative for over three and a half months. If the New York Fed has it right again this time, the US economic recession of 2007 is certain.

Getting The Real Economic Scales Right

In 2005, the last full year for which data is available, all new borrowings by US private households amounted to $US 1.241 TRILLION. Then the Fed estimated that mortgage equity withdrawals exceeded $US 700 Billion annualized in the first half of 2006. The central thing to notice here is that this total sum borrowed by American consumers amounts to 11 percent of the total US economy on a GDP basis.
Now, with the bursting of the US housing bubble, there will be scant chance for Americans to use their house as an ATM machine in 2007. Consumer spending is about 70 percent of the US economy. If consumers can’t borrow, they can’t spend and that leads to an instant and deep recession.
In hard fundamental terms, if America’s borrowers, spenders and consumers were to suddenly stop all their borrowing at its present annual rate, the entire US economy would contract by more than 10 percent. This fall would be deeper than any of the recessions the US has had since the end of the Second World War. A US economic recession that deep would have two main secondary effects. The first would be a huge contraction of federal and state tax inflows, leading inescapably to exploding budget deficits on both the federal and state levels. The second effect would be a wave of personal, family and business bankruptcies that would shake the entire US financial system to its foundations. Any nation’s financial system goes “critical” (faces a meltdown) when bad loans exceed the lenders’ own capital.

A Short Economic Interlude On Fractional Reserve Banking

It got its modern start, really, in olde London town. The bankers on Lombard Street discovered that the notes they wrote to people who had deposited money with them (for example, “Mr Smith has deposited the sum of 10 Pounds in coin”) started to be used by their own customers as a form of alternative “money”. It did not take long before many of these bankers started issuing their own banknotes – which all said on their face – “Pay To Bearer Of This Note The Sum Of 10 Pounds In Coin”. Then the bankers discovered that with these notes of theirs circulating freely in the city, it was easy indeed to issue some additional notes as loans. These were uncovered notes. The bankers did not have the coin in hand with which to meet a full redemption of all their notes. Fractional reserve banking was truly born.
And with it was born the “credit cycle”, the periods when more new credit was issued than people paid back outstanding loans. With this came credit expansions and the “boom and bust” economic cycle.
Today, banking is much more advanced from those earlier primitive financial times. Today, the Fed says that US banks must deposit 10 percent of all their loans extended with it as “reserves”. The BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, says that banks must maintain 8 percent in capital of their own to hold behind their total loans issued. But the banks can themselves borrow 4 percent of that. So that really means that international banks have capital of their own which equals 4 percent of all their loans.
Now, gentle readers, hit such banks with losses of 10 percent of their total loans outstanding.
Grasp that with fractional reserve banking, only a small fraction of depositors get their own money back.

The Fed’s Z-1 Report And US Fractional Banking

The Fed’s Z-1 report which was released in September 19, is a hair raising thing to read. It reveals the America’s debt disaster in stark statistics. Back in 1999, total outstanding household debt was $US 6.4 TRILLION. At the end of the second quarter of 2006, total US outstanding household debt was $US 12.3 TRILLION. That is $US 5.9 TRILLION of new and additional monetary and financial purchasing power that has been decanted into the American financial system over those few years. Only a fractional reserve banking system makes it possible. The new loans can be created at a multiple of reserves available.
Back in 2000, when US homes were worth $US 11.4 TRILLION, there was only $US 4.8 TRILLION in mortgages against them. In the second quarter of 2006, that US mortgage debt has increased to $US 9.3 TRILLION. True, the purported value of the US housing stock is now estimated to stand between $US 20-22 TRILLION, but that only means that the US financial system has discovered a new economic “magic”. This is a way to increase mankind’s economic wealth out of thin air as loans, loans that themselves cost the originators no more than computer entries. But if this really “works”, then the US financial system has overcome mankind’s fundamental economic problem – that of scarcity. The fact that real economic goods are in limited supply is what gives economic goods value. If economic goods are in unlimited supply – such as the air we breathe, for instance, then they have no value at all.

Loans Unlimited – Goods Unlimited – No Need to Save


Back in 2005, the US net national saving rate – the combined saving of all individuals, businesses and the government sector as adjusted for depreciation – fell to a record low of 0.1 percent of national income.
This is also a record low for any leading global economic power in the entire modern history of the world.

Borrowing The Savings Of The Rest Of The World

In 2005-06, America absorbed about 70 percent of all the surplus savings made elsewhere in the world.
With the US current account deficit growing at a $US 874 Billion annual rate in the second quarter of 2006 (6.6 percent of GDP), external financing requirements are about $US 3.5 Billion of capital inflows into the US each and every business day of the year. So far this year, the US trade deficit is running at an annual rate of $US 781.6 Billion, far above last year‘s record of $US 716.7 Billion.

The Rest Of The World Gets More US IOUs

The Fed’s Z-1 report unveils some interesting financial data. It reports how much in US Dollar financial assets the rest of the world now holds. At the end of the second quarter of 2006, the number had soared to $US 11.6 TRILLION! At the beginning of 2003, the number stood at $US 7.6 TRILLION. Combine the two above paragraphs under a single intellectual heading and it should be clear that they are in fact near mirror images of each other. The combined US current account and trade deficits leaves offshore the debts which the US economy now owes the rest of the world. These are in the form of US financial assets. These could be US Dollars held in foreign accounts, or Treasury debt paper, or stocks and bonds of all descriptions which foreign US creditors have chosen to buy with the US Dollars they earned.

In The Gambler’s Den

The latest report by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) shows that the total outstanding volume of all over-the-counter credit derivatives increased from $US 3.5 TRILLION in 1990 to $US 63 TRILLION in 2000 and to over $US 283 TRILLION this year. The total amount of exchange-traded and over-the-counter structured financial instruments was 27.3 percent of global GDP in 1990. This year it is 772.8 percent. The BIS has reported that the global market for derivatives has soared to a record $US 370 TRILLION in the first half of 2006, boosted by credit default swaps.

WHAT The US Economy Actually Produces

Over this year, about $US 4.5 TRILLION worth of manufactured goods will be produced inside the USA.
But global trade figures for the first nine months of this year also show the US will import about another $US 1.4 TRILLION worth of goods and export about $US 775 Billion, which then makes available a total stock of manufactured goods of $US 5.1 TRILLION for the US economy. The critical figures here are the actual US output of $US 4.5 TRILLION and the imported goods of $US 1.4 TRILLION. They show that in gross terms, if the US had to rely solely on its own output, the sum total of goods produced and available for consumption inside the US would contract by a huge 31 percent. Conversely, it also shows that close to one-third of the present US living standard is manufactured by foreigners.
The central thing to grasp here is that this US output of $US 4.5 TRILLION is, in fact, the US economy.
When The US Balance Of Trade Re-balances

It is this real US economy which not only has to supply Americans with their consumer goods but also has to produce saleable American manufactured goods for export to the rest of the world just to service the enormous debts the US now owes the world. Here, in global terms, it is self-evident that no nation can sustain indefinitely a living standard one-third higher than its own national output. Ahead of the world lies an enormous re-balancing of global trade. What lies ahead has happened to other nations in past economic history, some of them to a drastic degree. The sequence is well known. After a prolonged period of trade deficits and the inherent external debts, any nation starts to swing towards regaining the balance in its foreign trade. After that, the nation must actually swing into a trade surplus with the rest of the world so as to service its accumulated debt. Finally, to resolve the situation, the nation involved must achieve a trade surplus big enough to actually REPAY the debts it has accumulated.

When The Internal US Economy Re-balances

Inside a nation which has run chronic trade/current account deficits, the first thing that has to happen to resolve the situation is that internal consumption must fall. That means that present real living standards have to fall because a stock of unconsumed economic goods has to be made available for export. Once these goods are available, they must be exported, so there is in fact no immediate economic benefit because the money earned is then sent right back to the lenders which have lent the nation money. The only direct benefit gained is that the debts owed are being slowly reduced. In the case of the US with its present trade global deficit running at close to $US 800 Billion, it means taking $US 800 Billion out of the present US economy of $US 4.5 TRILLION and exporting it. That, in its turn, requires an internal fall in real US living standards to the tune of 17.7 percent. These US goods are no longer available for internal consumption but are instead sold to foreigners. In real economic terms, these are massive future internal changes inside the US economy. But historically, all of past human economic history shows that such changes have happened after any nation has engaged in prolonged trade deficits.

Hell No – We Won’t Repay

There are only two historical alternatives to the sequence of turning around a trade deficit. One is that the indebted nation chooses to default on its external debts, causing massive global financial chaos in its wake. The other is that the indebted nation chooses to go to war with its creditors in lieu of paying them. Which of the choices the US will make is as yet unclear, but they are the only choices available in reality. A nation can re-balance and then repay debts, it can default on the debt or it can go to war. The problem is that the US has all the strategic means with which to go to war, while any other smaller nation in a similar trade deficit and debt situation would find itself forced into the re-balance and repayment in lieu of simply defaulting on the debt. Economically, the US has been living in a “reality disconnect” for many decades. Its time has now run out.

Source: The Privateer, 2006 Volume - Late November Issue - Number 566

[Ducimus]

Damn.

I knew there was a reason why so many conservatives hate California. It's really France in disguise. :huh:Man - you spelled it wrong - Kalifornia! Get it right already.

-S
I've lived there. It's actually Cantafordya.

Cantaffordya is correct.

[nikimcbee]

Texas= Canada:o How embarrasing.:rotfl: I gues it's better than being Tibet or North Korea. Minnesota= Norway :rotfl: It's just an extension of Norway- Lutefisk exports!

[nikimcbee]

THE U.S. ECONOMIC MAP VS. THE WORLD

Yesterday, the market capitalization of Chinese state-owned oil company, PetroChina, hit $1 trillion -- eclipsing U.S.-based rival Exxon as the world's most valuable company. Last night, at a lecture in Manhattan, I heard George Soros predict (yet again) that the unraveling of the U.S. economy had finally begun. Last week, a London-based financial newsletter called the United States “the next Argentina” -- suggesting that the U.S. economy's destiny was to echo the fate of Argentina -- a formerly prosperous nation that descended into poverty and economic chaos. It seems that anytime financial markets have a bad week or two, the global financial press readily hitches itself to the doomsday bandwagon by cheerfully predicting the demise of the U.S. economy.

At times like this, it's worth reminding ourselves that we've been here before. In the 1970s, Americans grew up with two myths. First, that the Soviet Union would dominate the U.S. militarily; second, that the Japanese would dominate the U.S. economically. With the Soviet Union erased from the map, and the Japanese stock market below levels it traded at 17 years ago, both fears seem almost quaint. Yet today, the conventional wisdom that Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- the BRIC countries -- are set to dominate the United States is just as prevalent.

The U.S. Economic Map: Size Matters

In the midst of a housing collapse and credit crunch, the impending doom of the U.S. economy is taken as gospel. But look behind the headlines, and the numbers tell a different story. The U.S. economy grew by 3.9% in the credit turmoil-ridden third quarter -- following a 3.1% jump in the second quarter. That means that the United States added the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia to its economy just since the beginning of April. And the fact that the World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. economy the most competitive economy in the world last week got little press. And even when it did, the #1 ranking of the United States was explained away as a statistical mirage.

This is not to say that the U.S. economy is in ship shape. But with all of the talk about China and India dominating our economic futures, it's worth reminding ourselves where these new economic challengers stand in comparison to the United States today. Despite the high economic growth rates of developing nations, the United States is by far the world's wealthiest nation as measured by GDP -- the broadest measure of economic wealth. And the rest of the world isn't even close. This year, U.S. GDP is projected to be $13.22 trillion. That means that the U.S. economy is as large as the next four-largest economies in the world -- Japan, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom -- combined.

The map below -- originally published here (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/1689290:1719322453:m:1:83861553:FDD53E403C1E2C740A 2EEBDBDB6CAA04) -- puts the size of the United States' global rivals in perspective. On the map, the name of each U.S. state is replaced by a country, whose GDP equals approximately that U.S. state's GSP (gross state product.) A quick glance at the map leads to some fascinating -- and unexpected -- comparisons.

http://www.theglobalguru.com/images/GDP_map.gif

Standing alone as a country, California would be the eighth-largest economy in the world and approximately the size of France. Texas' economy is half the size of California's and its GSP compares to that of Canada. Florida's GSP is approximately the size of Asian tiger South Korea. Illinois' economy is approximately the size of Mexico. Ohio's economy is roughly the size of Australia's. Tennessee's GSP is the size of Saudi Arabia; Nevada, the size of Ireland; Alabama's economy is the size of Iran. Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States, is approximately the size of Pakistan's economy.

And what about the United States' nearest rivals? Germany and China -- #3 and #4 on the list of the world's largest economies -- are smaller than the economies of Texas and California combined. India's $800 billion economy is on par with Florida. Brazil, as we see on the map, is comparable to New York. Russia's economy is about the size of New Jersey (or Texas).

The U.S. Economic Map: Two Caveats

Not surprisingly, reactions to the map have been mixed. The first criticism is that the map is based on nominal GDP -- how much wealth is generated in dollar terms -- and not how many goods and services those dollars buy. Economists sometimes use “purchasing power parity” (PPP) when comparing the size of global economies. Because prices for goods tend to be lower in developing countries, this measure makes poorer countries appear wealthier than they really are. But in taking a birds-eye view of wealth generation in the global economy, that approach makes little sense. Think of PPP as similar to a “cost of living adjustment” on a country level. Within the United States, $50,000 in Kansas buys you a lot more than it does in Manhattan. But as a measure of wealth in absolute terms, having $50,000 in your bank account is the same no matter where you live in Kansas or Calcutta (Kolkata).

Second, the map does not adjust for population. California and Texas have a combined population of 60 million, while China's population is 1.3 billion. This has huge implications. Let's say China does become the largest economy in the world in 20 years time. Yet, because of its large population, even if it continues growing at its current pace (a huge assumption), by 2050 it will only be as wealthy as former Communist Hungary is in 2007.

The U.S. Economic Map: The Past... and The Future

In 1790, the United States was a new, tiny nation of 4 million, about the size of Ireland today. Europe's population was 180 million, while India's was 190 million and China's was 320 million. Only seven cities had a population of 5,000 or more; just 12 had a population above 2,500. The United States had an agricultural economy with practically no factories. By 1885, the United States was #1 in the world in manufacturing. It produced almost 30% of the world's manufactured goods to outpace both the British Empire and the spanking new Germany. Into the 21st century, the cutting edge of global industries -- whether Silicon Valley, Hollywood, or Wall Street -- are still products of the U.S economic experiment.

Underestimating the U.S. economy has become the new global financial sport. Yet the Japanese economy has not matched U.S. growth rates for at least the last decade. Europe celebrates triumphantly when its growth rate hits 2.5%. And for all the press they generate, China and India rank 34th and 48th, respectively in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index. The world has been counting out the United States as far as I can remember. The U.S. economic map provides a vivid reminder of just where the U.S. stands.

Nicholas A. Vardy
http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=171&offer=GURU001


I thought it was interesting.

Great post, I love geography:up:

[The WosMan]

When I want to talk to you, wosMan, I let you know. Your constant hidden offendings of me and of people disagreeing with you becomes a bit annoying. Having been on the receiving end of your arrogance three times in as many days, I think, does not make you more sympathetic to me. One waste gate per board is enough, one would think.


@ all others.
I found the translated text via Google.

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=179


Will The US Wage War Against Their Creditors Instead of Paying Their Debts?


by William S. Buckler, Australia

In a recent TV interview, perhaps in a moment of inattention, British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with the interviewer’s statement that the situation in Iraq was a “disaster”. The 10 Downing Street media crew has been trying to explain away his agreement ever since.

The Cost Of The Bush Wars

Congressional Research Service figures put the total cost of the Iraq occupation, Afghanistan and other war on terror activities at $US 507 Billion. The US Afghan campaign has cost at least $US 88 Billion. Iraq accounts for the rest of the costs, so far. These costs have passed the inflation-adjusted cost of the Korean war which was $US 361 Billion. Next year, it will almost certainly pass Vietnam’s $US 531 Billion and trail only the US (again inflation-adjusted) cost of fighting World War II.

Cut And Run – GOP Style

The new Democratic majority in Congress will have to face the more than $US 460 Billion in unfinished US military budget business. The present lame duck Republican majority in Congress is aiming to simply pass continued spending resolutions instead of signing their names to the bills. This means that the Republican party has done a cut and run from its own fiscal responsibilities for the wars which their party’s President has started. That makes it the Democrats’ problem when they arrive in January 2007.In early 2007, President Bush will send Congress a bill that could exceed $US 130 Billion for his continuing wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Living In Reality Disconnected Times

Across the English-speaking world, we are living in morally absurd times. The creators of this absurdity are three men - George Bush, Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard who sent a small team of Aussie diggers to Iraq. These men are now drenched in human blood. Their invasion of Iraq and their occupation there has turned that land between the two rivers of Mesopotamia into a charnel house.
Whether one takes the Lancet study of 655,000 dead in Iraq, the Iraqi government’s latest estimate of 150,000 dead or George Bush’s estimate of about 30,000 Iraqi dead (in a public statement made close to a year ago) – the fact remains that these men now survey a field of wreckage and death.
Why then are these men still treated by civil society with politeness, even respect, as Heads of State and government in the English-speaking world? In reality, these men created all this vast carnage.
Reality Disconnect –

War There But «Peace» Here

Living in the English-speaking world’s civil societies – specifically in the US, Britain or Australia, it is as if there are no wars at all except on the sanitised news. People go about all their daily affairs as if there was no continuing carnage in the Middle East. These people face none of the war taxes or rationing which normally accompany any war. Nor is there a draft, although one is being talked about in the US. In sane economic times, a government fighting a war must constrict private consumption so it can use all these resources. It must increase taxes, draft young men and women and decree wartime mandatory work.

Endless Foreign Wars On Global Credit

On Sunday, November 26, the US war in Iraq war will enter its 1347th day, thus exceeding the length of the entire US involvement in the Second World War. There is still no end in sight for the two wars the US is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economically, the Bush Administration is funding its wars not with increased taxes but with stupendous borrowing as its budget deficits show. The US economy, the civil economy, is funding itself too with its own stupendous borrowing as the huge increase in US private debts also shows. The combination of these two streams of borrowing shows up in the US trade and current account deficits with the rest of the world which are in their turn being funded by China, India and nearly all the rest of the world’s “developing” countries and “third world” economies. Historically, these new money flows are a grand reversal from former times. It used to be the capital rich nations which exported their capital to the less developed nations. Today, the nations poor in real capital are reexporting the their earnings from their exports to the supposedly capital “rich” USA.

The US Danger Point - Money Flows

The Treasury Department has stated that net long-term capital flows into the US fell to $US 65.1 Billion in September from a revised $US 114.4 Billion in August. The US trade deficit narrowed by 6.8 percent in September, totalling $US 64.3 Billion. This is the figure to watch! In September, enough fresh money flowed into the US financial system to fund that month’s trade deficit. But when that changes and insufficient foreign funds flow into the US to fund its external deficits, the alarm bells will start ringing all over the financial world. At that point, the Bush Administration cannot fund its external wars nor can the American consumer fund his or her consumption. When an actual outflow of foreign funds now placed inside the US begins, then financial, monetary and economic havoc are certain to follow.
Any substantial outflow of foreign funds would lead to an instant tightening of credit conditions inside the US. When a lot of the present foreign holders of US Dollars decide to leave, their selling of the US Dollar would lead to a fall in its international value. In economic terms, the Fed would be faced with the alternative of defending the US Dollar with higher interest rates and sending the US civil economy into an accelerating recession – or defending the internal US economy by lowering interest rates which would accelerate the flight of foreign capital even further and place the US Dollar at an even steeper global risk. This is already an unavoidable situation.

A Global Warning Note

The September net long-term foreign capital inflows were not enough to cover for the US current account deficit, which has been running at about $US 70 Billion a month. In September, the US was in deficit in terms of the flow of international financing for its double deficits – the current account deficit and the trade deficit. This is another version of reality disconnect – this time in the field of US finance.
Were anybody to look for the root cause of all this, as The Privateer does, it isn’t hard to find. The Bush Administration has raised the ceiling on the US natio2nal debt from $US 5.95 TRILLION in 2001 to $US 8.97 TRILLION in 2006. That’s an increase of over $US 3 TRILLION or 51 percent in five years. The wonder here is that people in Washington thought that this “policy” of debt could continue indefinitely.

Straight From The Horse’s Mouth

They do tell you. But they always hide it in the small print. A recent report by the New York Fed has warned that each of the six recognised recessions since 1968 has been preceded by the yield on 10-year US Treasuries falling below 3-month yields for a period lasting longer than three months.
The full crunch hits 12 months later as the delayed effects of monetary tightening. “There have been no false signals” – the Fed report said. The US yield curve has now been negative for over three and a half months. If the New York Fed has it right again this time, the US economic recession of 2007 is certain.

Getting The Real Economic Scales Right

In 2005, the last full year for which data is available, all new borrowings by US private households amounted to $US 1.241 TRILLION. Then the Fed estimated that mortgage equity withdrawals exceeded $US 700 Billion annualized in the first half of 2006. The central thing to notice here is that this total sum borrowed by American consumers amounts to 11 percent of the total US economy on a GDP basis.
Now, with the bursting of the US housing bubble, there will be scant chance for Americans to use their house as an ATM machine in 2007. Consumer spending is about 70 percent of the US economy. If consumers can’t borrow, they can’t spend and that leads to an instant and deep recession.
In hard fundamental terms, if America’s borrowers, spenders and consumers were to suddenly stop all their borrowing at its present annual rate, the entire US economy would contract by more than 10 percent. This fall would be deeper than any of the recessions the US has had since the end of the Second World War. A US economic recession that deep would have two main secondary effects. The first would be a huge contraction of federal and state tax inflows, leading inescapably to exploding budget deficits on both the federal and state levels. The second effect would be a wave of personal, family and business bankruptcies that would shake the entire US financial system to its foundations. Any nation’s financial system goes “critical” (faces a meltdown) when bad loans exceed the lenders’ own capital.

A Short Economic Interlude On Fractional Reserve Banking

It got its modern start, really, in olde London town. The bankers on Lombard Street discovered that the notes they wrote to people who had deposited money with them (for example, “Mr Smith has deposited the sum of 10 Pounds in coin”) started to be used by their own customers as a form of alternative “money”. It did not take long before many of these bankers started issuing their own banknotes – which all said on their face – “Pay To Bearer Of This Note The Sum Of 10 Pounds In Coin”. Then the bankers discovered that with these notes of theirs circulating freely in the city, it was easy indeed to issue some additional notes as loans. These were uncovered notes. The bankers did not have the coin in hand with which to meet a full redemption of all their notes. Fractional reserve banking was truly born.
And with it was born the “credit cycle”, the periods when more new credit was issued than people paid back outstanding loans. With this came credit expansions and the “boom and bust” economic cycle.
Today, banking is much more advanced from those earlier primitive financial times. Today, the Fed says that US banks must deposit 10 percent of all their loans extended with it as “reserves”. The BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, says that banks must maintain 8 percent in capital of their own to hold behind their total loans issued. But the banks can themselves borrow 4 percent of that. So that really means that international banks have capital of their own which equals 4 percent of all their loans.
Now, gentle readers, hit such banks with losses of 10 percent of their total loans outstanding.
Grasp that with fractional reserve banking, only a small fraction of depositors get their own money back.

The Fed’s Z-1 Report And US Fractional Banking

The Fed’s Z-1 report which was released in September 19, is a hair raising thing to read. It reveals the America’s debt disaster in stark statistics. Back in 1999, total outstanding household debt was $US 6.4 TRILLION. At the end of the second quarter of 2006, total US outstanding household debt was $US 12.3 TRILLION. That is $US 5.9 TRILLION of new and additional monetary and financial purchasing power that has been decanted into the American financial system over those few years. Only a fractional reserve banking system makes it possible. The new loans can be created at a multiple of reserves available.
Back in 2000, when US homes were worth $US 11.4 TRILLION, there was only $US 4.8 TRILLION in mortgages against them. In the second quarter of 2006, that US mortgage debt has increased to $US 9.3 TRILLION. True, the purported value of the US housing stock is now estimated to stand between $US 20-22 TRILLION, but that only means that the US financial system has discovered a new economic “magic”. This is a way to increase mankind’s economic wealth out of thin air as loans, loans that themselves cost the originators no more than computer entries. But if this really “works”, then the US financial system has overcome mankind’s fundamental economic problem – that of scarcity. The fact that real economic goods are in limited supply is what gives economic goods value. If economic goods are in unlimited supply – such as the air we breathe, for instance, then they have no value at all.

Loans Unlimited – Goods Unlimited – No Need to Save


Back in 2005, the US net national saving rate – the combined saving of all individuals, businesses and the government sector as adjusted for depreciation – fell to a record low of 0.1 percent of national income.
This is also a record low for any leading global economic power in the entire modern history of the world.

Borrowing The Savings Of The Rest Of The World

In 2005-06, America absorbed about 70 percent of all the surplus savings made elsewhere in the world.
With the US current account deficit growing at a $US 874 Billion annual rate in the second quarter of 2006 (6.6 percent of GDP), external financing requirements are about $US 3.5 Billion of capital inflows into the US each and every business day of the year. So far this year, the US trade deficit is running at an annual rate of $US 781.6 Billion, far above last year‘s record of $US 716.7 Billion.

The Rest Of The World Gets More US IOUs

The Fed’s Z-1 report unveils some interesting financial data. It reports how much in US Dollar financial assets the rest of the world now holds. At the end of the second quarter of 2006, the number had soared to $US 11.6 TRILLION! At the beginning of 2003, the number stood at $US 7.6 TRILLION. Combine the two above paragraphs under a single intellectual heading and it should be clear that they are in fact near mirror images of each other. The combined US current account and trade deficits leaves offshore the debts which the US economy now owes the rest of the world. These are in the form of US financial assets. These could be US Dollars held in foreign accounts, or Treasury debt paper, or stocks and bonds of all descriptions which foreign US creditors have chosen to buy with the US Dollars they earned.

In The Gambler’s Den

The latest report by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) shows that the total outstanding volume of all over-the-counter credit derivatives increased from $US 3.5 TRILLION in 1990 to $US 63 TRILLION in 2000 and to over $US 283 TRILLION this year. The total amount of exchange-traded and over-the-counter structured financial instruments was 27.3 percent of global GDP in 1990. This year it is 772.8 percent. The BIS has reported that the global market for derivatives has soared to a record $US 370 TRILLION in the first half of 2006, boosted by credit default swaps.

WHAT The US Economy Actually Produces

Over this year, about $US 4.5 TRILLION worth of manufactured goods will be produced inside the USA.
But global trade figures for the first nine months of this year also show the US will import about another $US 1.4 TRILLION worth of goods and export about $US 775 Billion, which then makes available a total stock of manufactured goods of $US 5.1 TRILLION for the US economy. The critical figures here are the actual US output of $US 4.5 TRILLION and the imported goods of $US 1.4 TRILLION. They show that in gross terms, if the US had to rely solely on its own output, the sum total of goods produced and available for consumption inside the US would contract by a huge 31 percent. Conversely, it also shows that close to one-third of the present US living standard is manufactured by foreigners.
The central thing to grasp here is that this US output of $US 4.5 TRILLION is, in fact, the US economy.
When The US Balance Of Trade Re-balances

It is this real US economy which not only has to supply Americans with their consumer goods but also has to produce saleable American manufactured goods for export to the rest of the world just to service the enormous debts the US now owes the world. Here, in global terms, it is self-evident that no nation can sustain indefinitely a living standard one-third higher than its own national output. Ahead of the world lies an enormous re-balancing of global trade. What lies ahead has happened to other nations in past economic history, some of them to a drastic degree. The sequence is well known. After a prolonged period of trade deficits and the inherent external debts, any nation starts to swing towards regaining the balance in its foreign trade. After that, the nation must actually swing into a trade surplus with the rest of the world so as to service its accumulated debt. Finally, to resolve the situation, the nation involved must achieve a trade surplus big enough to actually REPAY the debts it has accumulated.

When The Internal US Economy Re-balances

Inside a nation which has run chronic trade/current account deficits, the first thing that has to happen to resolve the situation is that internal consumption must fall. That means that present real living standards have to fall because a stock of unconsumed economic goods has to be made available for export. Once these goods are available, they must be exported, so there is in fact no immediate economic benefit because the money earned is then sent right back to the lenders which have lent the nation money. The only direct benefit gained is that the debts owed are being slowly reduced. In the case of the US with its present trade global deficit running at close to $US 800 Billion, it means taking $US 800 Billion out of the present US economy of $US 4.5 TRILLION and exporting it. That, in its turn, requires an internal fall in real US living standards to the tune of 17.7 percent. These US goods are no longer available for internal consumption but are instead sold to foreigners. In real economic terms, these are massive future internal changes inside the US economy. But historically, all of past human economic history shows that such changes have happened after any nation has engaged in prolonged trade deficits.

Hell No – We Won’t Repay

There are only two historical alternatives to the sequence of turning around a trade deficit. One is that the indebted nation chooses to default on its external debts, causing massive global financial chaos in its wake. The other is that the indebted nation chooses to go to war with its creditors in lieu of paying them. Which of the choices the US will make is as yet unclear, but they are the only choices available in reality. A nation can re-balance and then repay debts, it can default on the debt or it can go to war. The problem is that the US has all the strategic means with which to go to war, while any other smaller nation in a similar trade deficit and debt situation would find itself forced into the re-balance and repayment in lieu of simply defaulting on the debt. Economically, the US has been living in a “reality disconnect” for many decades. Its time has now run out.

Source: The Privateer, 2006 Volume - Late November Issue - Number 566


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tchocky]

Wosman, skybird.

A little respect goes a long way.

[Letum]

When I want to talk to you, wosMan, I let you know. Your constant hidden offendings of me and of people disagreeing with you becomes a bit annoying. Having been on the receiving end of your arrogance three times in as many days, I think, does not make you more sympathetic to me. One waste gate per board is enough, one would think.


You complain about hidden "offendings" and then offend wastegate! :doh:


When I want you to reply to this, Skybird, I will let you know. ;)

[Subnuts]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

We're all glad you can contribute to this discussion.

[baggygreen]

In response to the lengthy piece posted by skybird and attributed to an aussie, I have this to say.

The following quote, from the article, completely discredits the author, regardless of how pretty-sounding his words might sound.

"Across the English-speaking world, we are living in morally absurd times. The creators of this absurdity are three men - George Bush, Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard who sent a small team of Aussie diggers to Iraq. These men are now drenched in human blood. Their invasion of Iraq and their occupation there has turned that land between the two rivers of Mesopotamia into a charnel house."

Way to self-sabotage an otherwise seemingly impressive document.:up:

[Chock]

Any person with half a brain can see that this mistake was not made. Besides, if it were, that would mean the US would have the worlds worst GDP - uhhh hello?

Are you just screwing with us Chock because I wrote that someone would try to say something different? Ha ha. Very funny.

I didn't say that was the case with the map's figures, I was merely pointing out that figures don't always equate to an accurate comparison, my example being merely one to illustrate an occasion where this can occur, not necessarily where it does. So it was not to intimate that the figures were incorrect, merely that there is a lot to consider. But, if you like I'll tell you one where the comparison genuinely does fall down:

An example where this does occur would be to consider viable export market profits in the figures. For the hard of thinking, I'll translate that: If Wyoming makes X amount of money, and Colorado makes Y amount of money, then Wyoming and Colorado's combined profits would indeed equate to X+Y added to the USA's total profits, however, because they will be selling stuff and buying stuff from one another, the figures are not representative of how much that state makes as a viable comparison to the international market, because they are making money internally from other US States as well as externally, via exports, this being the figure that matters if you want to compare what a State makes to what a country makes. So if Germany makes X, and France makes Y, then X and Y are representative of their gross profits on the international stage, because the figures represent what is coming into the entire country, and any internal sales are not part of that balance sheet. To assume otherwise is to assume that what Wales makes off England can be added to the total profits of the UK, and if that were the case, then we could just sell each other stuff all day and become the world profit leaders.

In other words, you have to subtract domestic spending from the equation to get the correct comparison if you compare internal markets to international ones, overall, the total profits each state makes added together do equal what the US makes, but the comparison per State to a country's total profits is flawed.

It is however, a fun comparison, and semantics aside, it doesn't alter the fact that the US as a whole is still blowing many countries out of the water as far as profits go.

:D Chock

[Iceman]

Neccessity is the mother of invention....as gas prices rise here is when I see these crazy Americans at it again trying to come up with bigger and better forms of transportation... I love it.

It is weird how natural gas and alternative types of energy get overlooked....

Was a good and "intresting " opening post/article. GJ :up:

Knock over the ant hill and watch em re-build :)

[Skybird]

In response to the lengthy piece posted by skybird and attributed to an aussie, I have this to say.

The following quote, from the article, completely discredits the author, regardless of how pretty-sounding his words might sound.

"Across the English-speaking world, we are living in morally absurd times. The creators of this absurdity are three men - George Bush, Tony Blair and Australia’s John Howard who sent a small team of Aussie diggers to Iraq. These men are now drenched in human blood. Their invasion of Iraq and their occupation there has turned that land between the two rivers of Mesopotamia into a charnel house."

Way to self-sabotage an otherwise seemingly impressive document.:up:These men sabotaged their reputation themselves when launching these idiotic two wars, lied and betrayed the public, and cause nothing good, but only a mess, also their competence to wage both wars is not really obvious to the wide public by now. And by pointing finger at the author and trying to clean his very insightful remarks off the table (he is publishing his newsletter with financial and market analysis to paying customers since 25 years), by attacking him over his rejection of the war's reasonability, you sabotage that whole comment of yours, to use your words. Deal with his arguments on the issue, or don't. This is no thread on Iraq, ME, Afghanistan. So don't try cheap shots at him in order to discredit him. That is called cheating. Deal with his staements by argument.


@Tchocky, Leturm,

what I first had set up here, now goes in PMs to you.

[SUBMAN1]

Thanks all for the good laugh! This was one of the funnier threads I have read here in a while!

-S

PS. Told you someone would refute irrefutable evidence! I'm beginning to wonder if people can see past their blinders of their own fantasy land. This is not you Chock - you are just playing devils advocate.

[Skybird]

Told you someone would refute irrefutable evidence! I'm beginning to wonder if people can see past their blinders of their own fantasy land.
That's exactly what is on my mind, too. :up: Just that I am looking at the opposite direction than you do.

Let's see if you people in america still laugh in ten or fifteen years. :hmm: Or maybe even much earlier.

I have not heared anyone being able to reject what Buckler had written, and the events of the past 12 months since he wrote it, gave even more indications that he probably sees it right. I am not fluent in business and financial English, but his points are exactly what I am trying to point at so often, in less elaborated language and maybe becasue of that without the needed precision. And like me, Buckler says not so much that the economy is weak, but that it is highly vulnerable due to the great deficit and in dysbalance, and the dependency on foreign investements. He explains it very nicely. Couldn't do it any better in German myself.

A very well-written article. Read it again carefully. the thoughts expressed in it could hurt America more than any economical or financial crisis ever before. And eventually, it also could damage the rest of the world even more.

[STEED]

Thanks all for the good laugh! This was one of the funnier threads I have read here in a while!

Really? :huh:

I must re-read this thread again but first time for a cup of tea.

[waste gate]

When I want to talk to you, wosMan, I let you know. Your constant hidden offendings of me and of people disagreeing with you becomes a bit annoying. Having been on the receiving end of your arrogance three times in as many days, I think, does not make you more sympathetic to me. One waste gate per board is enough, one would think.


You complain about hidden "offendings" and then offend wastegate! :doh:


When I want you to reply to this, Skybird, I will let you know. ;)

No worries Letum, I don't feel offended in the least. I have to respect the opinions of those who would try to offend me before I can be offended. Since I have no such respect I'm not offended. I'd still fight for Skybird's right to speak his mind, regardless of his desire to stop me. That is the difference between us.

[baggygreen]

What i was trying to get at sky, and possibly didnt come across to well, is that if you're writing an academic argument or professional piece, to resort to using colloquialisms like he did as far as im concerned, discredits to a degree an otherwise well-written article.

I'll acknowledge, rereading it, i was too rough on it - hence my change from 'completely discredits him' to "discredits to a degree" the article. But as far as I'm concerned, it was an unnecessary shot by the author. I feel there is so so much wrong with what he said in that paragraph - he deems the moral absurdity the fault of these 3 men, but is it not morally absurd that you, as stated in your other thread, cannot even voice your concerns about islam without fearing court cases?

Anyway, I digress with that, it was in my opinion an otherwise well-written piece, I just feel it was spoilt by an unnecessary cheap shot. I'm also happy to edit my post if it'll make anyone happier.:yep:

[Skybird]

No worries Letum, I don't feel offended in the least. I have to respect the opinions of those who would try to offend me before I can be offended. Since I have no such respect I'm not offended. I'd still fight for Skybird's right to speak his mind, regardless of his desire to stop me. That is the difference between us.
That is too kind of you. And I don't buy one bit of your honey, for your record and history of threads and opportunities that demonstrate your willingness to manipulate by suggestive language is too often too obvious. Some may fall for your occasional candy-sweet poison, and manipulative "reasoning". I don't buy it. And if others do, it is not of my concern. I just watch and wonder.

[Skybird]

What i was trying to get at sky, and possibly didnt come across to well, is that if you're writing an academic argument or professional piece, to resort to using colloquialisms like he did as far as im concerned, discredits to a degree an otherwise well-written article.

I'll acknowledge, rereading it, i was too rough on it - hence my change from 'completely discredits him' to "discredits to a degree" the article. But as far as I'm concerned, it was an unnecessary shot by the author. I feel there is so so much wrong with what he said in that paragraph - he deems the moral absurdity the fault of these 3 men, but is it not morally absurd that you, as stated in your other thread, cannot even voice your concerns about islam without fearing court cases?

Anyway, I digress with that, it was in my opinion an otherwise well-written piece, I just feel it was spoilt by an unnecessary cheap shot. I'm also happy to edit my post if it'll make anyone happier.:yep:

Okay, however. Maybe I was a bit harsh, too.

[waste gate]

No worries Letum, I don't feel offended in the least. I have to respect the opinions of those who would try to offend me before I can be offended. Since I have no such respect I'm not offended. I'd still fight for Skybird's right to speak his mind, regardless of his desire to stop me. That is the difference between us.
That is too kind of you. And I don't buy one bit of your honey, for your record and history of threads and opportunities that demonstrate your willingness to manipulate by suggestive language is too often too obvious. Some may fall for your occasional candy-sweet poison, and manipulative "reasoning". I don't buy it. And if others do, it is not of my concern. I just watch and wonder.

I'm not one to throw, what you call 'honey', at anyone. You seem to know that Skybird. I pull no punches, I speak my mind. I also allow you to speak your mind. That doesn't mean I will allow you to make statements/disertations I disagree with without challenge. That is free speach. I have always been a relentless advocate for free speach. Look back at my posts and you will find that to be the case.

Free speach does not, or ever has meant allowing a free, unapposed, disemination of any one persons opinion. It is for that reason that you and I have come into conflict in the past, and,I expect we will do so in the future. The sooner you accept that fact the more comfortable you will be with 'real' free speach.

wg

[Skybird]

Your own polls with their extremely suggestive options illustrate what you understand as "free speech". And often it is rabble-rousing. Many of your psotings do not lack that quality either.

By intention.

Like your new signature that meanwhile you deleted again, maybe by demand, maybe by better knowedge - a quote by Neal that you intentionally ripped out of the context of the thread where he said it. Takeda was totally right in your latest poll thread when saying you were not about an honest serious poll, but about trying to challenge me again, and I knew it as well from the first moment on I read just the title of that thread. that'S why I ignored it completely.

You give a damn about political correctness yourself, and don't hesitate to cheat by words and phrasing if it promises to help you getting your views delivered, no matter how extreme and intolerant they sometimes are. And when you come under fire for it, you turn by 180° immediately and try to hide behind suddenly behaving like the most politically correct and honest person on earth. You just have overlooked - that the show is not believable anymore if you exaggerate it so often and so extreme like you do.

I write this calm and with an untroubled mind, that times are over, regarding you. Because I know by multiple experiences now that it is only a question of time until you will run into troubles with people and the moderation again, like often before, and prove all by yourself by your very own acts that I am right on target with my assessment of you. You proved it before, and you will prove it again, it is a safe bet.

All I need to do is lean back, enjoy my coffee, and wait.

Out.

[Sailor Steve]

Damn.

I knew there was a reason why so many conservatives hate California. It's really France in disguise. :huh:Man - you spelled it wrong - Kalifornia! Get it right already.

-S
I've lived there. It's actually Cantafordya.

Cantaffordya is correct.
Verily, thou holdest the truth in thy words. I humbly bow and admit my grievous misspellings to the world.:sunny: