Quote from CT10Gov:
Do you understand the impact of the sovereign default of the reserve currency?
The US does not have a problem with its interest payments. By definition, it will never have such a problem. I'm not sure you understand this point.
I don't mean to be rude, but do you have any background on this subject? If not, I think I might be having a technical discussion with someone who doesn't know the technicals.
You clearly do not understand the impact of QE. It is as much a default as a creditor's agreement. It appears to be you who does not understand the impact of QE. How can you not appreciate the impact devaluing the currency has on the reserve value and in addition the impact it will have on oil prices?
The biggest impact will be through QE. A creditors default now would be a lot less damaging than the QE needed. QE can create a currency war, which be hugely damaging. The creditor's agreement will rearrange the debt to enable repayment. It may infact improve the position of the currency if it prvents further QE.
The proposition in the paper is to cut the interest payments which will compound over time. It is well noted the US national debt is enormous and the interest payments are growing due to compounding.
You keep saying things without any explanation. For example.
"The US does not have a problem with its interest payments. By definition, it will never have such a problem. I'm not sure you understand this point."
What is your rational for this. Is there empirical evidence?
If the US is currently needing to borrow $1.3 trillion in debt for federal expenditure and then pay $230 billion a year in interest on the exisiting debt then you have a problem with your deficit and it is growing by around ten percent every year. You say that the interest payments are not a problem yet they either increase the deficit by another quarter of a trillion a year or require QE, which will reduce the value of the dollar, which could trigger a currency war, impact domestic prices and create problems with the oil market.
You are not making any real arguments or anything to comment on. You are simply just saying I am wrong and then insulting me. That does not suggest you have an alternative position to the one I am making. What figures or position are you criticising? What fundamentals am I lacking in. Please give me a detail explanation. I have provided you with one, which includes empirical data.
You ask do I understand the impact of technical default. Yes I do but I don't think you understand the impact of the alternatives. I am not saying it is an ideal solution however it may be the only option America has.
The only possible argument you could make that QE is not a default is that a group of people said it is not. It is as much a default as bankruptcy or a creditor's agreement as in the creditor's will lose value on what they expected in real terms. That is a default. Even if a group of people disagree with that the market will see it that way.
If you want to discuss the subject you have to actually provide some substance to your argument rather than saying "You are wrong" "You don't understand" "I know better than you" "You don't understand what you are talking about". What makes you think your position is to understand this better than mine. What credentials do you have, what arguments or position can you put forward, what empirical data or papers do you have?