Is america bankrupt as a country?

My sarcasm does not translate well in writing.
I used a few sources in my response:
Missed crediting: Tyler Durden http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-moves-making-renminbi-reserve-currency

Quote from zdreg:

pocketchange

""Anyone that fucks with our dollar or tries to affect its status as the world's reserve currency will be taken out through swift and decisive attacks."

"Needless to say, should the yuan be seen increasingly as a reserve currency, all of this, and virtually everything else is about to change.

The only question is whether or not the Yuan will cement its status at the top of the currency pyramid by allowing the backing of the currency with individual or a basket of commodities. If that were to happen, it would be the last nail in the coffin of the already terminally ill dollar."


you are a real flip flopper.

__________________


About the Author

The Implode-o-Meter staff account: our in-house commentary and compilation of news.
See All Posts by This Author
China Embarks on “Five Year Plan” To Dump The Dollar
March 2nd, 2011 • Related • Filed Under
by Aaron Krowne

There has been a lot of well-meaning talk about the “threat” of China dumping the dollar, with precious little discussion of potential mechanisms.

A ZeroHedge piece that just came out got me thinking that China is actually well underway on its path to explicitly driving the stake into the heart of the dollar once and for all (incidentially, this makes a nice follow-on to my recent article about China’s ability to “dump” the dollar based on hard asset holdings). It is clear now they really are going down a well-defined path here, that shows it is only a matter of time until we arrive at wholesale regime change for the dollar-dominated international trade system.

The main insight in the article is that China is taking new steps to provide for settlement of trade in Yuan instead of dollars:

The Chinese central bank surprised with a spectacular announcement: The would-be superpower wants to handle their entire future foreign trade in yuan, not in dollars. Beijing shakes America’s claim to represent the key currency – with serious consequences for the U.S..
…

Previously, China also announced that bilateral trades with Russia and Malaysia will begin to be conducted with the yuan and the ruble and ringgit, respectively.

Other moves on the part of China to internationalize its currency include allowing foreign companies to issue yuan-denominated bonds and relaxing rules for foreign financial institutions to access the yuan.

Over the past two years, they had begun doing this at first with select trading partners. Then, in the last few months they began establishing the general ability to do this via the normal banking system (as in, allowing for holding Yuan in banks outside of China).

Those who are saying that China is “stuck” with the dollar are now apparently more sure of this than China is. If China is “stuck”, it is certainly not acting like it. And heaven forbid they create exactly the outcome they want to bring about by resolutely taking those first few steps of a “journey of 1000 miles”, nay-sayers be damned.

When you think about it, it makes little sense that everyone (especially the Chinese) should by default hold dollars, when China and not the US is the “company store” the world goes to for most of its goods. Basically, the US has (till now) had the geopolitical influence to demand its own worthless IOUs be accepted by that store. But now the vendor realizes that if he decides not to accept them, the customer will not have anywhere else to go, so it is the vendor (i.e., the one providing the real stuff) that can demand the terms.

China has clearly had that realization, and is beginning to prepare for this future by setting up an infrastructure so major trading partners and individuals can settle trade in Yuan, if they want to. Customers (especially BRIC members) that don’t want to be exposed to the dollar will choose this now, but few others will.

This is a distinct phase: start making Yuan trading available; expand it, but it will remain “optional”.

However, a second phase will no doubt follow where everyone buying from China will be forced to use the Yuan. As I pointed out in the company store analogy, it makes zero sense to use the customer’s currency, rather than the store’s “house currency”. The customer is just as well able to sell its own currency (dollars) and buy the store’s (Yuan) — provided, of course, the facilities to do so exist. Once they do, there will be little excuse not to use them.

There will be no practical limitation from buying Yuan and selling dollars to do so, and it will be compulsory as long as the world is buying $40-60B of Chinese goods, and returning nothing of value, on a monthly basis.

I can’t imagine the onset of that phase will be any good for the dollar.

To look at it in a broader historical perspective, the phases can be seen as this:

China decides to industrialize and begin opening; needs the help of the US, the pre-eminent advanced Western client. Has virtually no choice but to accept dollars, but also no reason to worry about investing them back in the US. Pegs the Yuan low to provide a “discount” for all goods purchased, as this is its only real selling point (no mature industry is present; it all has to be built from scratch).
(The US also has the slight problem that it has taken its currency off the gold standard, and so no one really “wants” the dollar. Who better to take it, no questions asked, than a new economic “client” state?)

China becomes well-developed (supply-side wise), and in fact, the largest nation with a full base of industry (to the US’s detriment). Still accepts dollars, in fact more than it’d like, as the US isn’t making much in the way of goods anymore (the built-in discount for Chinese goods proved impossible to compete with). By the end of this phase, the US has thoroughly discredited its capital markets by allowing them to become rife with fraud and bubbles, and its government financing has become a huge Ponzi scheme.
China begins implementing Yuan settlement facilities, and some Yuan banking. We are in this phase now. Utilization of the facilities is optional, and only “US haterz” participate on a large scale, mostly out of principle. The dollar is still not “threatened” in the near term, as there is still far too little “depth” in the Yuan international market.Also in this phase (discussed in my previous article), China is engaging in many off-market transactions to secure hard assets, without “selling” dollars in any meaningful volume (interesting question: why would they do this if they didn’t expect the dollar’s value to fall hard in the not-too-distant future?)
China’s realization that they are the vendor and can demand the manner of payment comes to full fruition, as Yuan settlement becomes mandatory. Yuan banking and large-scale Yuan markets have been set up for Chinese global trade in its totality.
An interesting question is the timing of phase 4. Phase 1 was about 20 years. Phase 2 lasted about 10. Will the time scale continue to compress? I suspect so. If we are 2 years into phase 3, then perhaps it will last 3 more years, for 5 total. That would mean in 2013/14, Yuan trade/capital facilities will reach their full “breadth” (though not depth). Then over about 2-3 years, the “switch over” would occur, and the world would be forced off the dollar, for China trade purposes at least (other purposes would follow due to the massive volume involved). That puts us at about 2016/17 for “dollar drop dead” date.

So perhaps this is one more “five year plan” — and one the US really needs to pay special attention to.

But as for timing, who really knows. What I am much more confident about is the course of the path.
 
in argentina they are known as provinces in the US it is the states.

AND DANIEL NADLER

Last Thursday, the president urged Congress to pony up roughly $200 billion in taxpayer money to "provide more jobs for teachers [and] more jobs for construction workers" and more money to carry out other state and local activities. He urges Congress to spend this money even after handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for similar purposes as part of the 2009 stimulus package, as well as a score and more billion dollars again in 2010.

These vast contributions to the coffers of state and local governments, though pitched as a jobs bill, are in reality the latest in a series of bailouts for debt-ridden state and local governments. They are of special benefit to states in the blue regions of the country where the president's most fervent supporters reside.

In many blue states, legislators have copied the politicians in Washington by running up state debts to extraordinary levels. Nationwide, state debt is running around $3 trillion. If unfunded pension liabilities are factored in, estimated liabilities leap forward by another $1 trillion to $3 trillion, depending on the optimism of the assumptions made.

The bond market has taken notice. Before the 2008 financial crisis, state sovereign debt was just about the safest place to invest. Because investors did not pay taxes on the interest, states were able to borrow money at rates below those paid for federal securities. With the onset of the financial crisis, not only did borrowing costs rise across the board, but differences in interest rates among states widened dramatically. Bond holders concluded that some states, like Greece, had been extraordinarily profligate and, even worse, lacked the will to rein in their expenditures.

Enlarge Image

Chad Crowe
In a new study at Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance, we discovered why the Obama administration is so interested in helping out the states. States with a bluish hue—that is, states with legislatures that are heavily Democratic and have a highly unionized public-sector work force—must pay interest rates that are often an extra half a percentage point higher than states with a reddish coloring.

Specifically, a 20 percentage-point increment in either the Democratic share of the state legislature or a comparable increase in the share of the public work force that is unionized drives up interest rates by nearly a half a percentage point on a five-year security note. That amount is nontrivial. In Obama's home state of Illinois, it is costing governments over $700 million annually.

The impact of these political factors on interest rates is in addition to the impact of standard economic factors, such as a state's unemployment rate, its gross domestic product growth, and its debt-to-GDP ratio, all of which are themselves shaped in part by the state's political climate.

In short, the bond market has concluded that the more unionized the state and the bluer its political coloring, the riskier it is to hold bonds marketed by that state.

States will face even higher interest rates if the president's proposed limit on the deductibility of state and municipal bond interest income (to help pay for the jobs plan) is enacted. If the interest is no longer deductible, investors will demand a higher rate of return for buying bonds, and state calls for more federal aid will intensify.

Federal rescue of states is a dramatic departure from past practice. State bankruptcies date back to the 1840s when, amid a financial crisis, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and five other states discovered they had invested too heavily in infrastructure. The last state bankruptcy was in Arkansas during the 1930s. But overall the instances were few; in each case the federal government refused to come up with a fix.

Bankrupt states paid the price, but for the country as a whole, a system of fiscally sovereign states has proven incredibly beneficial to the nation's economic well-being. Every state is responsible for its own police, fire, schools, transport and much more, and most of the time they do reasonably well. If they manage their affairs so as to attract business, commerce and talented workers, states prosper. If states make a mess of things, citizens and businesses vote with their feet, marching off to a part of the country that works better.

It is this exceptional federalist system that helped drive the rapid growth of the American economy throughout the first two centuries of the country's history. Because state and local governments competed with one another for venture capital, entrepreneurial talent and skilled workers, governments generally had to be attentive to the needs of both citizens and commerce.

Related Video


Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on whether Obama's jobs plan can pass the Senate.

When it comes to fiscal sovereignty, U.S. federalism is exceptional. Hardly any other country in the world has anything like it. Only Switzerland and Canada—two nations that aren't doing that badly these days—come close.

But federal fiscal bailouts put our federal system at risk. In essence, the national government is acting as if states are too big to fail. In the next financial crisis, the federal government may decide that states need to be treated like General Motors or, at least, be given ever bigger handouts of the kind the Obama administration seems committed to making.

But if the federal government is going to tacitly assume responsibility for state debts, then those $3 trillion in sovereign state debt must be added to the $14 trillion national debt that has already caused grave concern, pushing the current U.S. debt into the danger zone. Even if pension liabilities are ignored, the combined federal-state-local debt runs in excess of 120% of GDP.

The costs go beyond dollars and cents. The more often the federal government bails out the states, the more Washington bureaucrats will insist on regulating state and local affairs. At some point the United States will see the end of state fiscal sovereignty and the demise our federal system of government.

Mr. Peterson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the director of Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance, where Mr. Nadler is a research fellow. The study by Mr. Nadler and Sounman Hong mentioned mentioned in this op-ed is available at www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg.


bailing out the provinces bankrupted argentina. bailing out the states will bankrupt the US.
 
Quote from Larson:

Bush would not be doing a d&!^ thing for the economy except continue run it into the ground, just like he did the prior eight years as the dollar slid to the depths. The job may be too big for BO, at least he is not causing the harm as Bush did. Nobody wants a debased currency and all the problems it entails. As things stand right now, the dollar is no better than the Euro. The only thing Bush did was appoint a competent Fed Chairman. I know a lot of you on this board rail against Benny, but he is doing the only thing he can. I am relieved Bush is gone.

Shiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt!!!!! Where were you during the boom that followed on the heels of an inherited recession topped off with 9-11????
 
Quote from bearice:

America is has survived because God wants America to survive. I think majority of Americans do not believe in God but God is still helping America for some reason.

God passed my house driving a old Yugo just the other day. He used to drive a big black Mercedes.
 
'I am relieved Bush is gone. '


The stupid American public chose him twice and are now paying the price for that and will for next 20 years atleast. Got to watch what decisions and choices one makes.............especially for the WH.

:D
 
Under GWB 5.6% unemployment, 500 billion debt, and AAA debt rating after two terms

Under Obama, 9.8% unemployment, 2 trillion debt, and no more AAA debt rating, plus an additional war neither approved by Congress nor the UN after just one term. Just think what Obama will accomplish if he gets a second term.

:D
 
Quote from Roark:

Under GWB 5.6% unemployment, 500 billion debt, and AAA debt rating after two terms

Under Obama, 9.8% unemployment, 2 trillion debt, and no more AAA debt rating, plus an additional war neither approved by Congress nor the UN after just one term. Just think what Obama will accomplish if he gets a second term.

:D

I need NOT answer to a RAT

Q: what is a RAT?

A: You are such a RAT that you don't even know it!


:D
 
Quote from Eight:

Shiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt!!!!! Where were you during the boom that followed on the heels of an inherited recession topped off with 9-11????

assuming this is a serious post, I'll tell you where I was, selling a 21 year old successful business that never fully recovered post 911, that's where I was. Where were the hell were you? Both Bushes did not give two shits about the economy. They sucked. Any modest increase in economic stats were not of his doing. It was called the jobless recovery, because there was no f**kin'recovery. which turned iinto a collapse in '08. The man was pathetic. And don't even mention Obama.
 
Back
Top