The US debt crisis has raised some very serious questions, and the answers floating around range from crazy to impenetrable. So we talked to Scott Pape, The Barefoot Investor, to shed some light on what’s going on.

The United States pay more than $US1billion per DAY on interest. Photo: Sky News

Q. How the HELL did the US get into this mess?

A. Even though it’s the biggest economy on the planet, and it’s a really complex beast, they got to this point the same way that Tom from Townsville’s credit card got out of control – the US Government consistently spent more than they made.

And now they’re broke – and like Tom, that means they can’t pay for the basics.

Actually it’s worse than that. The government actually pays more than $1 billion a day in interest on its debts - and spends $10 billion a day on doing ‘government stuff’.

Q. What does the Government spend its money on?

A. The money goes on entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and social security. That makes up almost half the budget. So for all the talk of raising the ‘debt ceiling’ this is really a story of out-of-control spending.

Q. Why have they decided to deal with it now?

A. Politics. Specifically the Tea Party, a small but powerful faction within the major Republican party that wants a radically smaller government – apparently even if that means having the government default on its debts, which would ironically increase the government’s borrowing costs.

Q. Aren’t they some sort of superpower that should be able to lift whatever ceiling they need to?

A. Theoretically they can, and they have. Since 2001 they’ve increased it ten times. Both sides of politics are historically guilty.

But the costly wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and bailing out the bastards who caused the Global Financial Crisis have whittled down the faith that the patriotic people have in their politicians.

There’s probably a good reason not to believe either side. Check out the graph below.

The debt ceiling

The real worry is that just like Tom from Townsville and his credit card, if the Government doesn’t eventually get in control of its spending, things may spiral further out of control.

Over the next ten years it’s estimated that the shortfall from what the Government spends to what it earns is $6.7 trillion. That’s a lot of dough for a country that is already living off its borrowings. It’s even more when you remember that the US (like us) has an ageing population that will be increasingly drawing on costly services like social security and Medicare.

Like Tom, there’s a couple of ways they can get out of trouble: cut back on spending, increase their income from taxes, or cut back on the promises they’ve made to their people.

Q. I don’t get it. Can you explain to me how they owe all that money… to Americans?

A. In order to borrow money the Government sells bonds.

In reality it’s big institutions that hold most of the debt: big institutional investors have about 20 per cent, the Federal Reserve and private investors each have about 10 per cent, government agencies like social security have about 35 per cent, and foreign holders (like China) hold about 30% of the debt.

Right now US government bonds are seen as ‘risk free’, but that could change if the ratings agencies downgrade US debts - which would increase their borrowing costs.

Q. If the politicking stops action and they default, will it really be the end of the world as we know it, or is everyone just getting a little hot under the collar?

A. It’s very unlikely the US will default on August 2nd, if for no other reason than neither side wants to be remembered as being the one who pushed the ‘self-destruct’ button.

The honest answer is that no one can predict what the ramifications of the biggest economy in the world defaulting on its debts will be. Suffice to say it won’t be sunshine and cupcakes.

Let’s take it back to Tom. He’s already over his head in debts. He’s already confessed that the next ten years will likely see him spend more money than he makes. He’s getting older. And now we’re jacking up the rate on his credit card. You do the math.

166 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • atthepub says:

      06:04am | 28/07/11

      Forgive the debt. See what happens. Pray.

    • David S says:

      01:51pm | 28/07/11

      “Pray” - a very ‘American’ solution indeed!

      What’s important is debt as a % of GDP and unfortunately the graph doesn’t show that, but here are the key facts:
      1. The US will not ‘default’ on it’s debt principal or interest obligations.  The treasury will continue to collect taxes (similar to PAYE and the like), and bond debt legally gets paid first.
      2. What will not get paid are public servants, maybe pension payments (social security), and other recurring and perhaps contract payments.
      3. #2 is unlikely in any event since an 11th hour deal will probably get done.

      This is all political posturing for the 2012 election - what a surprise.  The Republican line will be - I wanted to cut more but Obama wouldn’t let me.  The Democrat line will be - Republicans wanted to cut Medicare, social security and wanted to throw you out into the street.
      ...or something like that…

    • David S says:

      02:16pm | 28/07/11

      PS - Just to clarify - the US is not broke.  If the debt ceiling were passed, there would be no problem paying all bills as and when due.
      And this is not a spending problem, it’s a revenue problem.  Where does ‘The Punch Team’ get its’ facts? 
      If you take a look at total government spending, including state and local you will see that spending has not increased much above long run averages even through the financial crisis.  And this includes the so-called stimulus that never really was. 
      Taxes were slashed in 2001 which reduced tax collections, coupled with the expected reduction in tax collections associated with a recession.  The result has been the creation of a huge pool of private savings.
      Side note: so much for trickle down economics.  The huge savings pool was meant to be invested and create jobs, according to the supply siders - hasn’t happened.

    • atthepub says:

      04:47pm | 28/07/11

      David, if what you say is true and the US aint broke. Then what’s up?

    • iansand says:

      05:53pm | 28/07/11

      Are you serious, atthepub?  Haven’t you worked out that the Republicans (mainly) and the Democrats are playing chicken with the world’s economy as part of their positioning for the next Presidential election?

    • Aaron says:

      08:46pm | 28/07/11

      The interesting thing here is that had Liberals followed Labour’s initial plan of focusing more on the SE Asian economic relationships rather than the economic relationship with the US we wouldn’t even be discussing the effect of the US economy on Australia except in passing.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      10:44pm | 28/07/11

      Someone once said that you get the govt you deserve.

      The sepps deserve the republican party.

      Best of luck with that.

    • Alex says:

      09:43am | 31/07/11

      USA was saved last time he knocked down communism in Europe.Unfortunately due to greed American tycoons who have invested in China,U.S. economy is in collapse and that collapse can not be stopped without war world.Military spending under Bush was without reason without equivalent.Bush in office last month gave $ 700 billion to the banks in hopes that they will restore the economy.Actually,bush was not give money to banks for economic recovery,it was Bush family debts to the banks for selling weapons

    • JasonB says:

      06:05am | 28/07/11

      Is Wayne Swan going to apologise to Barnaby Joyce? Looks like he has more brains and foresight than the treasurer after all.

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:41am | 28/07/11

      Yeah great point. Poor old Swannie seems to be good at backing the wrong horse.

    • Joan says:

      07:49am | 28/07/11

      Yep AWU`s number one man Swannie on track to ruin Australia turned $20billion surplus into multimillion debt to Arabs and China in just 3 years and journos think Barnaby is the problem.

    • iansand says:

      08:43am | 28/07/11

      I thought Barnaby was predicting this apocalypse for Australia, not the USA.

    • Erick says:

      09:37am | 28/07/11

      Here’s Barnaby quoted in that article:

      “TONY Abbott’s new finance spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, believes the American Government may default on its debt, triggering an ‘‘economic Armageddon’’ that will make the recent global financial crisis pale into insignificance.

      “‘‘A default by the US means complete economic collapse around the world and the question we have got to ask ourselves is where are we in that?’’ he said.

      “He said the chances of a US debt default were distant but real, and politicians were not doing the electorate a favour by refusing to acknowledge the risk.”

      Looks like he deserves an apology.

    • Bill Door says:

      09:50am | 28/07/11

      I heard a US Republican being interviewed on NewsRadio yesterday. The upshot was:

      The US is not going to default on its debts. They may not lift the debt ceiling but that’s it. All it means is that the US will first pays its debt but will be left with a short fall to run government programs.

      In the worst case scenario Obama can go it alone and ignore congress.

    • RyaN says:

      10:10am | 28/07/11

      @JasonB: he definitely deserves and apology, but we know Swann hasn’t the backbone to actually admit his mistakes. Hell he is just as out and out a liar as Gillard.

    • Frank says:

      10:16am | 28/07/11

      lol but if we apologise for every one who made one good guess we’d be apologising to everyone from Keating to Sundrie so I think ur assertion is actually pretty immature…

    • fairgo says:

      10:31am | 28/07/11

      Hey Frank so it’s OK for Swan and the Government and media to run around for months on end calling Barnaby an idiot and saying he doens’t know what he’s talking about in regards to the possibility of the US defaulting.
      I know who sounds pretty immature now.

    • Glen says:

      11:31am | 28/07/11

      I want to see this on a T-Shirt: “Don’t blame me. I voted for Barnaby.”

    • Tom (the other one) says:

      12:14pm | 28/07/11

      Good post, Tom.
      I notice iansand has left the building. I thought he might have stuck around to thank you for correcting him?

    • Tim says:

      12:53pm | 28/07/11

      Erick,
      Barnaby wasn’t talking about the US defaulting on it’s debts because Congress was refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
      He was talking about the US not having the ability to pay ala Greece, which would be a far worse scenario.

      So he was sort of right for the wrong reasons.
      If you think that deserves an apology, then perhaps you’re a bit precious.

    • Erick says:

      01:17pm | 28/07/11

      @Tim - What makes you think the US will have the ability to pay exponentially rising debts? Have a look at the tendency in that graph - exponential increase. It gets even worse when you consider future liabilities.

      Barnaby is completely right to be worried about a Greece-like scenario. Swan is a fool.

    • Steve says:

      01:39pm | 28/07/11

      Tim you are missing a significant difference between the USA and Greece.

      The USA situation is as bad as Greece in as much as they cannot meet their commitments. The only reason that the USA has not and will not default is because they control their own currency. The Americans have been printing money via quantatative easing (QE 1 and QE2)

      Greece can’t meet their commitments but are in the Euro zone. A country can’t just print Euros because they alone don’t control the Euro.

      Neither country can repay debt. Both countries are borrowing money to meet maturing bonds. This becomes a problem when no one is prepared to lend you money anymore (Greece) or you have maxed out your borrowing limit(USA)

    • Tim says:

      02:20pm | 28/07/11

      Steve/ Eric,
      that’s my point.
      They are in a bad position but they control their currency.
      USA can still get loans as long as congress approves a raise and won’t (at least shouldn’t) default.
      They won’t have the ability to repay exponentially rising debts which is why they need to rein in spending as well as introducing tax increases in the next few years. Their tax receipts have gone through the floor while spending has increased which is completely unsustainable.
      But to not raise the debt limit here is a suicide pact by both parties.
      Wayne Swan may be a fool but what Barnaby was talking about was an extreme position where the USA defaulted because they couldn’t get any more credit which is still extremely unlikely. It’s a bit early to be calling for an apology.

    • Tom (the other one) says:

      03:25pm | 28/07/11

      Tim, I believe you are clutching at straws here. Joyce is quoted “... Senator Joyce said he did not want to alarm the public, but there needed to be a debate about Australia’s ‘‘contingency plan’’ for a sovereign debt default by the US.”

      Not one of the responses by Swan or Ken Henry echoed your argument “They are in a bad position but they control their currency.” I wonder if they realised that Barnaby would have finessed them with the “Zimbabwe” card?

      Instead:
      1. Swan bleated the “Barnaby is a nutter mantra”, while
      2. Henry kicked any prospect of a dialog into touch “Dr Henry warned then that public figures had to be careful about discussing ‘‘hypotheticals that are that extreme’’ because such discussions could be misinterpreted in the community.”

      If Henry had your argument up his sleeve, where was it at the time? Why didn’t Swan engage in something more than puerile ad hominems? If you really want to talk about stupidity in the media, look at readers comments underneath the article.

      The key issue is that Barnaby identified the need for debate then and was ridiculed, but here we are debating it now.

    • Tim says:

      04:02pm | 28/07/11

      Tom,
      http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2323/we’re-in-debt-to-barnaby
      “Joyce was talking generally about the sustainability of US government debt”.
      That’s in a right wing article which talks about how Barnaby was right and the government should apologise.
      Even they admit that he wasn’t talking about the situation we find ourselves in now, in which congress is refusing to raise the debt limit.
      He was talking about America defaulting due to an exponentially increasing debt.
      I don’t think anyone would argue that current debt increases are sustainable.
      But America defaulting due to not being able to find credit or pay their bills is still an extremely unlikely event.
      Trying to make it a partisan “gotcha, now apologise” moment in Australia is silly.
      Wayne Swan may be a fool but Barnaby is no genius.

    • Tom says:

      04:46pm | 28/07/11

      Tim, I was quoting from the Age (right wing? since when has Fairfax been right wing)

      You have trawled up another article. Your article was headed “The Australian Financial Review 25th March, 2011” (again Fairfax, right wing?). However, you took it on yourself to pronounce that it was “right wing” and dismissed all rationale arguments previously presented to you.

      That is straw man sophistry, plain and simple.

      No wonder you left wingers are getting thrashed in these debates.

    • Tim says:

      05:51pm | 28/07/11

      Tom,
      I’m left wing now?
      How? Oh I disagreed with you. Now I see.
      If you can’t see the context in which Barnaby was commentng, then I can’t help you. He was partially right for the wrong reasons.
      But you can keep fighting your partisan fights if it makes you feel better. Labor bad, Liberal good. Repeat.

    • Tim says:

      05:52pm | 28/07/11

      Tom,
      I’m left wing now?
      How? Oh I disagreed with you. Now I see.
      If you can’t see the context in which Barnaby was commentng, then I can’t help you. He was partially right for the wrong reasons.
      But you can keep fighting your partisan fights if it makes you feel better. Labor bad, Liberal good. Repeat.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      10:31pm | 28/07/11

      The most important apology Barnaby Rubble should be concentrating on, is his apology to Australian borrowers and the Australian people in general.

      On 9th Feb 2010 he stated that the Australian govt was in imminent danger of defaulting on it’s debts. This is UNBELIEVABLE, that a so called patriot would say this!

      Barnaby is a goat. He will say ANYTHING for attention. And does.

      Hockey kinda, sorta knows the difference between a million and a billion. Joyce knows nothing. He is the bottom of the barrel of populist scum.

    • Tom says:

      08:29am | 29/07/11

      No Tim, you invoked the “right wing article” phrase as if it was some all purpose dismissal on the opinion piece. Hence my assumption that you you were from the left and desperately clinging to your paradigm that Joyce is stupid.

      Like you, I had thought Barnaby was a fool, until I saw him wipe the floor with Conroy debating NBN’s business and governance models.

      Why would it kill you to admit that Barnaby actually got it right? How much emotional energy would it take to admit Swan’s hubris in relying on vilification rhetoric instead of debating with Barnaby?

      PS: talking about stupid vilification rhetoric, have a look at the moronic post from @DaveinPerth above. Do you really want to be associated with that type of mob chanting?

    • Tim says:

      09:21am | 29/07/11

      Tom,
      I used the term right wing article because that’s what it was. I wasn’t trying to suggest it was worthless because of it.
      As I’ve said, Barnaby was partially right for the wrong reasons.
      He’s not a fool like the Labor party say, but neither is he a genius.
      Swan attacked him because that’s what politicians do, even if the point of attack is wrong a lot of the time.
      If there’s political mileage to be made amongst voters they will use it.
      I dislike both sides of politics trying to use this issue for point scoring because most of them have no idea what they are talking about.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      11:48am | 29/07/11

      @Tom - Do you deny that Joyce made the statement on 9th Feb 2010? No. Do you even understand what effect this sort of drivel can have on borrowers? Probably not.

      If you were capable of understanding, you would realise that Barnaby owes the Australian people an apology for his behavior. He is a disgrace.

    • Tom says:

      01:52pm | 29/07/11

      DaveinPerth, the incident being debated was December 11, 2009. Keep up.

      “Do you even understand what effect this sort of drivel can have on borrowers? Probably not.” ...  You claim to have all the understanding.  Tell us what effect did it have, Mr Hot Air.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      07:58pm | 29/07/11

      @Tom - Just as I thought. No clue.

    • Economic Refugee says:

      06:08am | 28/07/11

      The yanks are devaluing their currency and at the 11th hr will agree to raise the debt level. This is just stupidity and designed to create fear and worry so the rich can get even richer. Stiff shit to them that their currency will be worthless soon. just like the yanks in the yank company I work for. We had about 15 of them come over to Germany in June and they were all about “3 million housing starts is just around the corner” to “never bet against the good ole US of A”.. Haaa I said, these guys are living in dream land, and all of them are very senior management of a huge global company.

      These idiots should stop peddling ridiculous things like 6 Sigma processes and actually look in their back yard and see its falling to pieces. These yanks ought to be ashamed of themselves.  I have all my investment properties going over here and have just signed the deal on a new one meaning I have all my savings tied up in a large amount of realestate. BRING ON INFLATION!!!! I have 3,6% interest loan rate locked in for 10 years baby!!

      I cant wait for these yank idiots to think they can save the day with a 6 Sigma powerpoint presentation when the whole system is stuffed.

      ( and I did this comment without siding to one political party wink can others do the same ).

    • Fatalist says:

      07:54am | 28/07/11

      Yes I can. So you also don’t mind getting rich off the back of potentially others misery, hey, mr slum lord? Also, if you hate Americans that much, then why are you working for them?

    • Gregg says:

      08:04am | 28/07/11

      All those eggs in one basket eh!

    • Economic Refugee says:

      08:10am | 28/07/11

      Because money is better off in the hands of someone who will do something decent with in not in the hands of scum like yourself.

      It wasnt a yank company when I started with them. They are really stupid, going on about being there for the long term, as soon as there is a slight down turn they sack half the staff to employ them 6 months later ( if they choose to come back ) they do a few 6 Sigma projects that end up being a disaster then they sack who they feel should take the blame. The shenanigans are over, time to pay your rent you pathetic yanks. The slum lord is coming to get you.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:25pm | 28/07/11

      @Economic Refugee aka Slum Lord- It’s no use being one if the economy collapses, anarchy breaks out or holdings get nationalized / appropriated. Things get too bad in the U.S and all you are holding is worthless paper….

    • Erick says:

      06:19am | 28/07/11

      This is a pretty good article, except for the gratuitous attack on the Tea Party. Tea Partiers don’t want a default - they want to radically cut government spending.

      Since Mr Pape quite correctly names spending by both major parties as the cause of the problem, I can’t see why he would object to the Tea Party’s solution, which is the only one that would actually work in the long run.

    • andy says:

      10:06am | 28/07/11

      @Erick - The problem with the american right in this whole debacle is that the deficit is a republican problem (have a look at the data, its not all that debatable), and since Reagan (who went from surplus to deficit) they like to say they cut spending but all they seem to do is cut taxes and increase spending. Now they are blocking the required fixes unless it is done exactly the way they want? You can debate the australian situation all you want, but in america the right has demonstrated that it is not fiscally responsible at all.  The republican party is like a person who runs up a huge credit card debt partying then makes their partner cut spending to pay it off. “The party of personal responsibility” hahaha.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      11:24am | 28/07/11

      I have to agree andy. The republicans in the US are a joke. The rich are on what i believe is 40% tax. In little old Australia its 46.5% the top bracket and we are not even on the brink of financial collapse.

      The US is almost at financial collapse yet they still won’t tax their rich. they need to take the most extreme of each parties policies and use that to keep the country afloat. What i refer too is the democrat style tax rises and the republican style spending cuts, Only then can the US drag itself back from the brink.

    • Erick says:

      11:34am | 28/07/11

      Andy, you are merely indulging in partisanship. The graph above helpfully shows exactly why you are wrong. Please study it.

    • Richard says:

      12:00pm | 28/07/11

      Not True Geoff, In the US, states levy income taxes as well as the Federal Government, so in many states of America the true top rate of Income Tax is 57.5%.

      Also, as I proved to days ago, the top 5% of earners in the USA pay over 55% of all income taxes, while 51% of earners in America pay no income tax or negative income tax (i.e. they receive more money from the government than they contribute in taxes).

      Taxing the rich is a disgusting attitude of jealous class war. No, the solution is never to “tax the rich”, the solution is always to cut the size of government.

      Because government is inherently wasteful, it wastes money by its very nature. Did you read my anecdote about a friend who this week has been working for Qld Health and so far been paid three days wages for doing no work at all? This is a common occurrence in the government sector.

      Government employees are paid too highly, given too many benefits, for doing too little work, and this is a fact. The government sector should never ever be offering better job conditions than the private sector, but they do here, and in America, and in Greece. And this is to our disgrace.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:18pm | 28/07/11

      @ andy, according to the graph you at wrong although it does only refer to the debt ceiling, apologies if debt does not correlate with the graph.

      @ Geoff, I agree, both parties plans to tackle the debt will not work. In stead of compromising they need to combine both plans to fix this monumental mess they are in.

      Sorry for the partisan politics, but I always said Howard/costello legacy was the fact they had voters concerned about debt levels (see the last 2 election campaigns), because the US is an example of what happens, when self-interest is the only reason to vote.

    • Tim says:

      12:58pm | 28/07/11

      Erick and Adam,
      I think you need to relook at the graph.
      I don’t think it shows what you think it does.

    • Richard says:

      02:08pm | 28/07/11

      Shane I was quoting the Arthur C. Brooks article that was published in the Australian 2 days ago but which I can’t link to you because its from the Wall Street Journal and thus behind a pay wall. But verbatim I quote:

      “Consider a few facts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of GDP today from 27% in 1960~ and is set to reach 50% by 2038.

      “The Tax Foundation reports that between 1986 and 2008 the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has risen to 59% from 43%.

      “Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980”.

    • andye says:

      03:12pm | 28/07/11

      @Erick - “Andy, you are merely indulging in partisanship.” I apologise. I didnt realise you were the only one allowed to do that. raspberry

      What I am trying to explain is that the problem is also one of misconceptions. The republicans are creating debt and then holding others to ransom to pay it off. Look at the chart above. The rate of change curves up during reagan, bush sr, bush jr. During Clinton it gets flattened out just before Bush Jr, then whammo. Obama? Man, he is screwed. 2 wars he didnt start, the GFC…

      If you wantto argue that in the australian situation the right is more fiscally responsible (well, in the past… not so sure about tony) you have some solid arguments. In the USA? Not really.

      If the republicans wanted to slash a whole bunch of stuff to sort out this problem, they should have done it when they were in power… but they didnt. Reagan should have cut spending to match his tax cuts for the wealthy… but he didnt.

      Partisan it may be, but the republicans are kinda being jerks about this. The spending cuts arent going to affect the rich, and their reagan tax cuts are still safe. The poor are going to end up paying americas debts. Hooray!

    • Budz says:

      03:40pm | 28/07/11

      Interesting graph of where the US debt is from.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:02am | 28/07/11

      This reckless US government spending, waste and borrowing…........for one second I though you were talking about Federal Labor smile

    • Mick S says:

      07:38am | 28/07/11

      US deficit is around 60% of GDP.  Australia’s is less than 5%. 
      But why let facts interfere with your stupid remark.

    • Richard says:

      08:08am | 28/07/11

      And the reason for that Mick S is because Howard and Costello had previously paid of ALL the debt, much to the chagrin of left-wing whiners (presumably like you).
      But don’t let historical facts interrupt you idiotic rant…

    • Tator says:

      08:23am | 28/07/11

      Mick S,
      don’t know where you are getting this 5% figure, as public debt from AOFM is currently $193 billion and our GDP is around the trillion mark (1000 billion.)  Last figure I could find was from the ABS was $1.2 trillion which makes our public debt which makes it 16%
      If you take the CIA factbook figures for 2010, they have our gross public debt to GPD as 22.4% which is up from 22.1 % in 2009.

    • andye says:

      10:11am | 28/07/11

      @Against the Man - Except in the USA, it is the right that caused all the debt. Look at the chart above. Look at the curves. Clinton had almost flattened out the growth of the debt… then Bush Jr came along. By the time we reach Obama and the GFC, it is too late. This debt has spiralled.

    • Matt says:

      10:21am | 28/07/11

      Richard - that’s not actually true.  The statements made were that we had no ‘net’ debt.  That doesn’t mean all debt was retired.
      Tator - try to compare apples with apples & make up your mind what you want to measure, deficit as a % of GDP or debt as a % of GDP.  These are very different things.

    • Andrew D says:

      10:30am | 28/07/11

      Tator, Mick S is referring to the size of the deficit. The debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what your figures relate to, is something different altogether. Both the Australian deficit AND debt-to-GDP ratios are some of the lowest in the world. I don’t think either political party can claim credit for the real driver of both of these numbers being so good; that is, we have heaps of stuff in the ground that the rest of the world really wants to buy. People are deluding themselves if they think either political party has much impact on the state of the economy.

    • The righteous one says:

      10:35am | 28/07/11

      have you noticed the largest spending increases co-incide with any period of armed conflict america is involved in. you would think the penny might have dropped by now.  Maybe it has with obama’s call to bring the troops home so that they (the americans) can rebuild america.

    • Against the Man says:

      09:25pm | 28/07/11

      Mick S check your facts. Labor is in trouble, can’t hide that fact. Swan is officially a dumbo can’t hide that fact.

      sinking fast Labor…...........sinking fast…............

    • Tator says:

      09:37pm | 28/07/11

      Ahhh,
      I stand corrected, its what you get when you blog before you are completely awake.
      But then again, the US deficit is not 60% of their GDP.
      The Obama administration’s original budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays for 2012.[14] The April 2011 Republican plan contained $2.533 trillion in revenues and $3.529 trillion in outlays.  In other words, they have a deficit of between $1 and $1.2 trillion, this is against a GDP of around $15 trillion

    • deb says:

      07:28am | 28/07/11

      Very scary place to live the ole USA. Spent six years driving a truck around the whole country and saw first hand the way the poor are discarded. Families living under bridges and no medical help for the poor..Dont believe that crap you see on tv shows,all bullshit,no money no doctor!
      Had to come back home because of poor health,afraid of what would happen if i couldnt pay private cover any longer.Dont know what the yanks spend money on? Not the people thats for sure.
      Maybe too much interfering in other countries business?
      But let me say i met some of the best poor /middle class folk you could ever wish to call friends and the country is beautiful.
      I guess seeing the place from a semi was the magic that cant be beaten!

    • Sceptic says:

      07:40am | 28/07/11

      Families live under bridges here too.

    • James says:

      08:00am | 28/07/11

      Yes, Deb, its a really scarey place here. One of the problems is we spend too much money on the poor. There are an abundance of homeless shelters so no-one should have to sleep under a bridge. We have government programs for food, so no-one needs to go hungry. We have benefits for the un-employed that last for 99 weeks in some cases. If you go to a hospital with life-threatening injuries or sickness they must treat you BY LAW.
      Yes, we have meddled in other countries business, its sad to say. We meddled in yours in the 40’s so you wouldn’t have to learn to speak Japanese. In the 50’s so you didn’t have to learn Russian. Since we’re now broke, good luck with learning Chinese or some dialect of muslim. Thank you for the kind words for our poor/middle class. Yes, We are freindly with people who make an attempt at friendship. I lived in NSW for 2 years and I can truthfully return the compliment.

    • deb says:

      09:21am | 28/07/11

      James, what about VIETMAN? Didnt meddle there ? They dont speak yank? problems with AGENT orange ect.. deformities,all in the name of stopping communism! go blow boy!

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      10:36am | 28/07/11

      @ James

      Curious question: after the USSR defeated Nazi Germany, and Japan’s chances of success became doomed anyway, was there a pressing need to drop nuclear weapons on two cities filled with civilians?

      I have read somewhere that it may have been a good thing, as it put a stop to the war there and then and avoided further military casualties. But was the price right? Was it a noble thing to do to trade the lives of civilians to save some of your soldiers?

    • MarkS says:

      11:14am | 28/07/11

      A noble thing Yes, they after all were their soldiers, young men who were fighting for them. Sacrificing them to save the lives of the enemy is betraying them & their families. A young man does not stop being a worthwhile human being because they put a uniform on, there is no moral rule that says soldiers lives are worthless & civilian lives priceless.

      In any event the atom bombs saved far more Japanese lives then they took. Without the shock of the atomic bombs Japan would have fought on, the Japanese dead from the invasion of Japan would have been many millions.

      The US planners purchased 500,000 Purple Hearts; the US still uses the same stock pile built up ready for Operation Downfall. US dead were guessed at around 100,000. Japanese soldiers were dying at a rate of around 10 to 1. So we are talking of about 1,000,000 dead Japanese soldiers. That this we must add Japanese civilians casualties, the Japanese government was issuing bamboo spears to their civilians for human wave attacks. My guess would be 10 million Japanese civilian casualties in the short term.

      The plan included nukes dropped on the invasion beaches to clear the way, fallout was not understood, casualties from nuclear fallout of the dozen or so nukes dropped on the beaches would have been in the same order as above. Then we have the starvation that would have occurred after & the fact that the USSR would have occupied the northern half of Japan. With the USA weakened & the USSR ruling half of Japan, who knows how the cold war would have ended.

      Let alone the fact that more Japanese civilians were being killed by the firebombing then the nukes killed. The firebombing of Tokyo in Feb 1945 killed at least 100,000, more than either of the atomic bomb attacks.

      The simple fact is that the Japanese & the rest of the world are very lucky that Japan was nuked. Horrid yes, but often the real world is so horrid it makes one feel sick.

    • The righteous one says:

      11:58am | 28/07/11

      what a load of crap that is james, thanks for the help in the 40’s the first time american troops fought in PNG they ran away Contrary to what might be taught in american schools apart from the world being created in 7 days.  America did not win WW2 or WW1 by itself and surprising as it may be to you some people actually do see you as medlers

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      12:53pm | 28/07/11

      @ MarkS

      I do see your points, and from a utilitarian perspective, I agree. But if I take the individualistic approach, it just seems a horrible thing. The Japanese people who died from the bombings were not the enemy as such, they were bakers, fishermen, nurses, teachers, children, pregnant women, the elderly. They did not choose to take part in the war, unlike the American soldiers who may or may not have died. They did not pick up weapons and resist, they were obliterated as they went about their daily business. Of course, the Japanese government of the time is partly to blame as well. They should have capitulated at the same time as the Germans, and these tragedies could have been avoided. It is all speculation now, I suppose, whatever happened has happened.

      Cold war, in my opinion, is the biggest exaggeration made up by Americans to feel important. A bit of spy games does not make it a war. The USA is not to be accredited with winning the “cold war”, as USSR was doomed for collapse from the outset. The economic system was not sustainable, and it would crash sooner or later by itself. USSR was broken up because the people in power realised that communism does not work in practice, not because of any threat from the USA. The cold war was a propaganda tool cleverly used by the American government to maintain popular support, and not much more. Ordinary USSR citizens did not know or care about the cold war, a different sort of propaganda was used to convince them that their life style is better than the West’s. Nothing but a lot of hot air.

    • MarkS says:

      02:22pm | 28/07/11

      Never denied it was a horrible thing, it was, part of the horror is found in understanding that murdering 100,000’s of people simply living their normal lives was the correct thing to do. Any chance there ever was of me believing in a just god died the day I understood that evil is required to defeat evil. When you fight monsters you become a monster.

      Many of the young servicemen would have been drafted, so did not choose. Anyway why value the life of a person who is willing to serve their nation over the lives of those who are not as willing.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:52pm | 28/07/11

      I suppose those that would be sent to fight against their own will are on par with the civilians that perished. I just can’t help but feel that there was a good chance of a Japanese surrender without the atomic bombs, which is, again, speculation, and possibly purely wishful thinking.

      If any other good came out of it, perhaps its the fact that the world witnessed the devastation of nuclear weapons first hand. We can only hope they remain a deterrent forever.

    • MarkS says:

      03:26pm | 28/07/11

      Wishful thinking? Maybe, we can never know.

      I hope you are right, but if anything the last week has shown us that there are nutjobs everywhere & some of them could be in charge of nations that have access to nukes.

    • Dee says:

      07:38am | 28/07/11

      Game over America!!

    • jf says:

      07:52am | 28/07/11

      To add a little context, and sanity, to this discussion, it is important to look at both sides of the balance sheet.

      A significant portion of the US debt is debt owed by own US Department to another. Unlike poor old Tom and his credit card, a lot of the debt has an equivalent debt on the other side.

      There is no doubt that the US is spending more than it can afford and that this needs to stop; as it does in Australia.

      However, unlike Tom in Townsville, I suspect that the US is a bit more like Tom in Toorak. Over-geared for sure, spending to much for sure but with assets that balance the debt to a point and with the capacity to curtail his extravagent lifestyle and save the family silver. Tom in Toorak’s kiddies are just going to have to ski at Mt Buller this year instead of Aspen. Tom, like the tea-party, may simply be pointing to his families over-spending, debt and costs of debt to justify the domestic holiday and not re-newing his wife’s BMW when the lease renews.

      Poor old Tom in Townsville? He’s more like Greece. Big debts, no assets uncertain employment and twins on the way.

    • Richard says:

      08:17am | 28/07/11

      Disagree. In fact I think the situation in America is even worse than in Greece, because apart from the $14 Trillion odd dollars in Sovereign debt, the American government is also on the hook for up to $70 Trillion dollars in unfunded government liabilities, such as pension plans, medicare, social security, etc.

      In fact, if you read the article closely, Scott mentions that “government agencies like social security hold about 35 per cent (of the outstanding debt)”. You see even the small part of the government liabilities (i.e. social security, medicare, medicaid etc.) that ARE funded, they are funded via the possession of US Treasury Bonds as a “liquid asset”. When T-bonds go to zero, which they eventually must, the unfunded liabilities of the US Federal Government will be that much higher yet again.

      We are now seeing all around the world the unravelling of a model of governance that thinks there is room for both democracy and socialism in the same system. But there cannot be, because if you allow it, the people will just keep voting themselves pay-rises at some one else’s expense. The only circumstance under which democracy is a viable system of organising government is under pure, unadulterated, laissez-faire capitalism. So far the Tea Party are the only ones to grasp this manifest fact, but in time it is becoming self-evident.

    • Anubis says:

      10:12am | 28/07/11

      Apparently Australia holds over $12 billion in US Government Bonds. If the US defaults then we are out $12 billion as well. (Figures came from the Debt Clock that was linked to in one of yesterdays posts)

    • MarkS says:

      11:46am | 28/07/11

      Greece is worse, if the US pollies could agree to increase taxes, most people would pay extra tax. In Greece nobody but Pay as you Earn workers pay any tax whatsoever.

    • Luke says:

      12:52pm | 28/07/11

      Richard:
      Yeah, the poor can get stuffed. They are useless. Maybe we should teach A Modest Proposal in (privately run, obviously) schools, and make sure nobody takes it as satire.

      Just like we should outsource the police, fire services, health services, education, and welfare. Because nothing bad could come of that… The mafia/yakuza/whatever organised crime syndicate could move straight on into those arenas and extract protection money at will then! We need to privatise everything the government currently owns. You know, because large corporations only ever act on behalf of their customers. We all know monopolies only ever benefit the population.

      Capitalism is inherently broken from the outset. Have you seen the vast amounts of laws REQUIRED to keep businesses even remotely honest? That’s under a brand new capitalistic society too, let alone somewhere like Australia that has had ample amount of time to layer hundreds of laws on top of each other (which is a problem of our government, not system of economics).

      I find it odd that Americans extol the glorious virues of capitalism. Then I remember that the only ones talking like that are the ones up the top who benefit by amounts almost exponential to the lower classes.

      Capitalism works perfectly. Just look at Enron, Exxon, Ponzi schemes and the fact that CEOs earn HUNDREDs of times more than the people who actually do the stuff that makes the company money.

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      02:12pm | 28/07/11

      @Richard: So, basically anarcho-capitalism?  It’ll never fly in a democratic system, because people will vote themselves in some basic protections and safety nets, and the entire cycle begins again.  Pure laissez-faire capitalism is a good idea in the way that communism is a good idea.

    • Richard says:

      04:08pm | 28/07/11

      No, not anarch-capitalism, and no, the people couldn’t vote themselves in some basic protections and safety nets, and the entire cycle begins again, because the government is simply limited in scope by an inalienable constitution which would state the the Government is responsible for the protection of our borders and National Defense, for the enforceability of contracts and the rule of law, and for the protection of property rights, and no more. So no, we don’t outsource the Police, but we do outsource health and education, hell we already have private systems set up in both those fields, and an objectively speaking they are superior to the public systems. “Outsourced” Welfare is called charity, and we know for a fact that people are more charitable when they are taxed less.

      So that’s not to say that safety nets are not allowed, it just means that the government is not allowed to forcibly tax people under threat of going to jail (i.e. theft) in order to establish it. 

      Capitalism does work perfectly in the absence of statist controls and bureaucratic regulations. I oppose all those big corporations as well you know, but I realise that they are only able to exist to the extent that Big Government requirements and regulations and restrictions act as a barrier to entry for the hundreds of smaller, local, more agile firms that would be able to operate Government requirements weren’t so onerous.

      You see those Big Corporations have economies of scale on their size and are able to employ large numbers of accountants to find tax loop-holes, and are able to employ large numbers of lawyers and lobbyists and conformance specialists etc., etc.. But without all the legislation and regulation and complex tax codes etc., which makes such costly staff necessary, smaller, local, agile forms would have a competitive edge over the Big Corporations of being on their own home turf.

      Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is in no way comparable to Communism. Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is the natural state of economics, it is how we would be if there were no government at all, and things would be fine. Communism on the other hand is an intangible fantasy, based on the exact opposite of reality, based on the misnomer that profit is evil.

      Profit is not evil, profit is necessary. Profit is a signal, a form of communication, which allows diverse and disparate data across the entire scope of a market to be synthesized automatically and signalled to all market participants about how they may most valuably serve one another’s needs and best interests.

      Laissez faire capitalism DOES work, but you see it can’t be controlled, which is why I guess all the Big Business/Big Government Plutarchs and Kleptocrats hate it so much.

    • jf says:

      03:25pm | 31/07/11

      Richard says:08:17am | 28/07/11

      “Disagree”

      That’s ok but as well as looking at both sides of the balance sheet you have to also look at the P&L. That is Tom from Toorak’s pretty strong cash flow. Because like Tom from Toorak, the USA’s income is strong. Poor old Greece, like Tom from Townsville, struggles to generate revenue.

      Whilst my post was to provide a pithy response to Scott’s analogy, this article makes the same point a little less flippantly. 

      http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/15/the-u-s-is-not-drowning-in-debt/

      Laissez fair capitalism can’t work or you get feudalism. Socialism can only work under a dictatorship.

      The capitalist system is fine. If anything, we are currently seeing just how resilient the capitalist economies around the world are even after a period of financial indulgence. Just like a fit, healthy person, capitalism can suffer a set back following a period of indulgence. Just like a fit, healthy person, capitalist economies will regenerate and power on.

      The US will be fine. No need to buy firearms, tinned food and retreat to your bunker in the desert quite yet.

    • wakeuppls says:

      08:09am | 28/07/11

      It’s easy to see the solution of this debt armageddon if Treasury simply regains its constitutional power to print money for the people interest free. That means the taxpayer is not pledged as collateral on a debt to the private Federal Reserve, who prints money out of nothing and lends it at interest. Unfortunately the mainstream media don’t like it when people are knowledgable regarding the system.

    • Richardd says:

      08:37am | 28/07/11

      True wakeuppls, but even still, you can’t trust the politicians and the bureaucrats much more than you can trust the banksters in my opinion. Money must be impartial and incorruptible, it must be backed by something solid, something real, something we can have faith in. Something like gold.

    • Dash says:

      08:45am | 28/07/11

      Ah - don’t go there man. What will happen to the value of the USD and the value of their debt if the US just print more money?

    • michael j says:

      09:06am | 28/07/11

      Quite simply i have no idea what you are on about ,but free money sounds pretty good and i want some now,,,,,,,,,

    • MarkS says:

      09:30am | 28/07/11

      Sure just print money.  Did you notice how much of the debt was owed to Americans, hyper inflation would impoverish the middle class of a powerful modern western nation.

      This has been done before, worked a treat in the 1930’s. Will need to buy shares in jackboot makers.

    • wakeuppls says:

      10:08am | 28/07/11

      MarkS. As oppose to the Fed dealing out 22 trillion + to banks worldwide and nearly zero interest. At least the government is somewhat liable for such a catastrophic financial decision. Countries’ central banks are essentially invincible juggernauts of economic mass destruction run by unelected unaccountable officials that hold office far longer than any political party.

      If you and your Mc-economics degree friends take your heads out of propaganda economics texts and have a look at the real world you’d understand a bit.

    • MarkS says:

      10:35am | 28/07/11

      In the Real World when central banks print money to fund government spending hyper inflation is the result. That is what happens, it has happened again & again & again. Lately Zimbabwe & Belarus. My reference was to the Weimar Republic, the most famous case.

      Yes the Fed dealing out interest free loans also increases money supply, but not as much as printing money & in any event much of the money created by the loans simply replaced money that disappeared by loans becoming unrecoverable

    • wakeuppls says:

      10:53am | 28/07/11

      No doubt corrupt countries will use printing power to devalue currency and transfer wealth, just as corrupt banks do. The difference is, instead of it being two impossible steps away from retribution with an untouchable central bank that operates independent of government yet still has the biggest impact on country finance, it would now be one step away with the aid of a competent population holding representatives feet to the fire.

    • John says:

      08:14am | 28/07/11

      Blame the International Bankers, The Federal Reserve and the Corrupt politicians that followed their orders. I bet you that they will flee the US once the US collapse’s most likely to Europe where they will then corrupt the EU system loot it then be expelled again. Their final expulsion will from planet earth by the hand of god almighty. May they will be sent to a prison planet miles away in the galaxy, who knows.

    • Steve says:

      01:12pm | 28/07/11

      USA boat people coming to Australia?

    • Gregg says:

      08:23am | 28/07/11

      I reckon it all comes back to employment and productivity and the developed countries of the west need to take a closer look at what the WTO level playing field means for the future and yep, if there are no tariffs, bet your bottom dollar there’ll be more Nikeys made in Indonesia or somewhere else than on home soil.

      Nett result is less employment at home, more imports, more social security cost and eventually less internally generated wealth to provide the services a community needs.
      We may be a long way from the problems of the US or Greece at the moment thanks to plenty of natural resources but there are already still plenty of people going without medical care and yes much industry has gone overseas.

      With tariffs in place we might pay more for some goods, mostly luxury items but that could be better I suspect than living like it is in many other countries.
      As one US economist has said, whatever happens, life is not going to be so rosey for the grandkids and that applies equally as well to Australia and Tom’s grandkids.

      It is beyond time to harden up people and support leaders who are prepared to question the WTO principles and the way in which foreign aid is dispersed.
      Until we all live by the principle of living within ones means, we’re just living a lie.

    • Tator says:

      08:34am | 28/07/11

      A speech to the American Senate by Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican dealing with budgetary issues, was designed to dispel some of the mythology that sits behind this debate. This excerpt comes via Powerline:


      First, I would like to address the myth that the president has a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The only plan the White House has ever put on paper is his February budget, which doubles our national debt.
      The president has never put a single spending cut plan on paper and he has no proposal to slash the deficit. If he does, it’s a closely guarded secret. And if such a secret plan does exist it should be made public this very afternoon. I’d like to see it. I’m sure millions of Americans feel the same.
      We also have no debt plan from Senate Democrats. In fact, they haven’t even passed a budget in 813 days.
      As of now, there is only one debt limit plan on paper. Only one plan available for public scrutiny and review. That’s the plan we are debating today: cut, cap, and balance. It cuts spending immediately, it caps it so it doesn’t go up, and it requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment to ensure Washington ends the deficit spending once and for all. The American people do not trust Washington to pass some grand budget deal with tax hikes that never go away and spending cuts that never materialize. …
      Another myth I’d like to address is the idea that our current budget crisis is the result of two wars and a tax cut. Let’s consider that claim. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, over the entire last decade, is $1.3 trillion. Again, that’s over the last decade. This year alone the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion dollars. War costs represent only 4 percent of total outlays over the last ten years. The total amount of money spent since the president took office is $8.5 trillion dollars. By the end of his first three years in office we will have added $5 trillion to our gross federal debt. We are borrowing almost half of what we’re spending every single day. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has soared 24 percent. The stimulus package alone—enacted into law in a single day in 2009—cost more than the entire war in Iraq. Annual spending when President Bush took office was less than $2 trillion. Today, it’s almost $4 trillion. It will be almost $6 trillion by the end of the decade.
      There is only one honest answer to the question over why our debt is rising so fast: out-of-control domestic spending.
      Another myth that’s circulating which I’d like to address concerns the budget summary from the Gang of Six. The authors of the summary claim that their approach would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion. But my staff on the Budget Committee can only find $1.2 trillion in reduced spending, along with a tax increase of $1 trillion. Where does the other $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction come from? Chairman Conrad, one of the members of the Gang of Six, even says the outline has a $1.5 trillion tax cut. But this is compared against a baseline that assumes a $3.5 trillion tax increase. It’s just an accounting gimmick. The real cost of the tax changes could be an increase as large as $2 trillion.
      This is why we need more than a handout—we need legislative text.
      The last myth that I’d like to address is perhaps the most important of all. This is the myth that we only need about $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.
      Democrats have said—although no plan has ever been made public—that they could get behind a budget deal that reduces the deficit $4 trillion over the next ten years, half of it comprised of spending cuts. I’m skeptical that even this minimal level of spending cuts would occur. But even if it did, it’s not even close to what is needed to ultimately balance our budget. We are projected to spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. A $2 trillion cut is only about a four percent reduction in spending that is set to increase almost sixty percent.


      Now lets see how this hand grenade goes as it shows that the Democrats are playing just as much politics as the Tea Party Republicans are

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:53am | 28/07/11

      Most of that was correct even though it was a little light.

      But one thing was wrong: your implication that it was the banks that caused the GFC.

      Banks didn’t do it. The US govt did.

      The US govt encouraged home loans to people that could never afford them. This goes back to the Carter administration. It was beefed up under Clinton and Dubya.

      Then the US govt decided to reduce the regulation on banks while encouraging loans to people that couldn’t afford them. Then the banks provided a guarantee that if the people that couldn’t afford the loans defaulted the US govt would bail them out.

      So banks acted as you would expect them to act: They piled into that game.

      Now, the US govt is bailing out the people as a result of their own stupid policies.

      Can’t blame banks for acting as you would expect them to act. Blame the govt for a lack of foresight and regulation.

    • andye says:

      10:23am | 28/07/11

      @Tubesteak - That is a simplistic evaluation. The line that it was all about giving loans to poor people sounds great but doesnt hold up. The problem was the way these loans were packaged up together and bought and sold on a market. The bad loans were bundled with other loans and a speculative bubble formed on loans that werent actually worth that much. The GFC was formed in a broken market for buying and selling bundles of debt that wasnt accurately rated - not in the fact that poor people got mortgages. Poor people mortgages didnt bring down the world financial system, dodgy practices in that system brought it down.

    • Bev says:

      10:51am | 28/07/11

      andye says:10:23am | 28/07/11

      Yup

    • Cryptic says:

      10:58am | 28/07/11

      It may very be an example of the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog, but at the end of the fable, both the Scorpion and the Frog drown.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:51pm | 28/07/11

      andye

      Again, you’re wrong. The US govt said they would guarantee the loans. Therefore, from a pure banking risk perspective, the loans were never bad because no matter what happened, they would be paid.

      Moreover, bundling loans and on-selling them is what banks do. Securitisation is a normal part of their business model as it is better to get the money now at it’s PV than later (as the borrower repays the debt over time). Therefore, bundling bad loans isn’t bad from the perspective of the bank.

      Not only is the US govt in the wrong for encouraging loans to poor people, but they are in the wrong for guaranteeing the loans and removing moral hazard from the market. They are then also in the wrong for not adequately regulating the banks and the removal of this moral hazard.

      The entire blame for the GFC sits at the feet of the US govt (either Rep or Dem, both are equally at fault).

    • David S says:

      03:25pm | 28/07/11

      @Tubestake: Never let the facts get in the way.
      Fannie and Freddie’s loan portfolio was dramatically less risky than the major securitized home lenders.  Subprimes were 28.3% of most portfolios while around 10% of Fannie / Freddie’s.
      The US government never said it would ‘guarantee’ any loans at the time they were given except for Fannie & Freddie’s.
      Data:
      http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

      Hundreds of banks like WaMu have collapsed (ie liquidation, doors closed) along with the big names like Lehman etc.
      Where are you getting your info?

      I’m all for strong regulation.  I agree with your point that naked greed drove the irresponsible lending, but the loans were never government guaranteed when the loans were made.

    • Richard says:

      08:59am | 28/07/11

      The media is super quick to jump all over the Tea Party here, but they have never been deceitful about their aims. They have always stated that they seek small government, low taxes, liberty and freedom, a return to the constitution and abiding by the principles laid out by the founding fathers.

      Are the Tea Party allowed to hold these ideals? Is the Tea Party allowed to pursue their stated agenda?

      Milton Friedman once stated that capitalism was a necessary pre-requisite for freedom. He didn’t say that freedom was necessary for capitalism, because there can be such a thing as a totalitarian capitalist state (i.e. fascism).

      But for true freedom and liberty to possibly exist, among other requirements, the economic system in use must be of pure, unadulterated, laissez-faire free market capitalism.

      But in America and all around the world, the statist zombies and bureacratic egg-heads thought they knew better~ they were taught so by their left-wing professors at their fancy universities. “We’ll just inject a bit of socialism into the economy” they thought, “what could be the harm?”

      So in comes socialised medicine, no big deal, universal health care is a human right, right? And in comes the Unions, demanding high wages, excellent benefits, job-security for life, a pension after they retire, and the politicians are like “we’d better give it to them, that’s an awful lot of voters there”. And the politicians just spend, just keep spending, just spend spend spend, any excuse. But the problem is, when you inject socialism into your economy, it becomes inefficient, ossifies, and ultimately dies.

      My friend was given a job at Qld Health this week. As anyone from Qld Health knows, there was a huge debacle with their payroll system last year, cost millions and millions of dollars. Well now the problem is still there because the can’t get any of their group certificates done. So they hired a bunch of new workers to help sort out the mess. And for 3 days, my friend has been getting paid for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, because the department hadn’t set everything up yet for them to start their work. She texts me every hour saying “I’m bored, I wish we could start doing our work already”.

      That sort of inefficiency is inherent in government spending. It happens everyday. How about those NSW government employees who were being retained on their full salary to do nothing at all after their jobs were abolished.

      This is unacceptable. The money doesn’t just appear, it comes out of the economy, it comes out of our pockets, and gets wasted! Infact, the government when it runs out of money just uses our name to borrow more, and WE have to pay it back in the future!

      Its crazy. Socialism must be abolished, totally and completely, in every manifestation it is found. User pays, its the only way. I don’t want to hear your bleeding heart arguments, I don’t want to hear about “equality” and “fairness” because you used them before and look where they got us. The only equality is equality of opportunity, where every one has a chance to succeed if they put in the work. The only fairness is people being allowed to retain the hard earned money they acquired by themselves without the government dipping into their pockets and stealing it away.

    • Sam says:

      10:09am | 28/07/11

      Richard says: 08:59am | 28/07/11

      “....The media is super quick to jump all over the Tea Party here, but they have never been deceitful about their aims. They have always stated that they seek small government, low taxes, liberty and freedom, a return to the constitution and abiding by the principles laid out by the founding fathers…..”

      The trouble is Richard that because the USA hase been hit so hard by the GFC then it became urgent that the Govt spend to try stimulate the economy. The Tea Party and the other Republicans call for lower taxes would also result in a massive income drop for the Govt, so it would have less money than it has now to pay for programs . You cant have a low tax economy and continue to spend, it just doesnt work, as we have seen. And those that say lower taxes result in spending increases by tax payers may want to look at our economy here in Australia, people have had tax cuts but they are not spending, people here worry about cost of living expenses, so we are now for the first time in a generation actually saving money, and not spending it.

      We have seen since 911 the exponential growth of the US Military and its interference increase around the globe. So the US must slash wasteful spending and that must include the US Military and its positions overseas (military bases). You will note the Republicans made a speech that made a point of stating that the Wars apparently had little effect on the debt ( Hmmmmm…) so you see they dont want to cut military spending, if they get in power it will be the same Republicans again burning Billions of dollars a day on its Military , cutting taxes (drop in revenue for Govt), and less spending on the US people. SO who would win? Big business once again!

      When you mention the Tea Party wanting to bring back the principles of the founding fathers you may wish to look at one important point, the Tea Party is a Christian Organisation and they tend to link the founding fathers with Christianity when it couldnt be more opposite. Many of the founding fathers didnt like, trust or believe in the Church ! A little reading on actual quotes from the founding fathers shows their complete distrust for religion.

    • Adam says:

      10:25am | 28/07/11

      But Richard your whole thesis is built upon the idea of equal capacity of all individuals. Laziness and largesse are problems. But what about the physically disabled? What about those with Down-syndrome? What if you have a car-accident at a young age without time to build the resources to pay for the injuries? What about the million unforeseen problems that occur throughout life? What about those who, though given every opportunity don’t have capacity to care for themselves? What should we do with them ? Say, ‘Stiff, it’s survival of the fittest and you don’t make the grade!’

      The problem in your idea is it leaves no room for compassion. Leaving individuals to care for those who need help based on their own choice doesn’t work. Compassion isn’t socialism. Rampart capitalism doesn’t work as it leads to rampart selfishness.

      I’m not a bleeding-heart lefty by any stretch of the imagination. Those who know me personally place me just left of Hitler. But your ideas are wildly fanciful. They might sound good in the classroom, but just don’t and won’t work in the real world.

      As for your argument that true fairness is governments leaving our money in our pockets. You need to watch the ‘Life of Brian’ especially the scene where the Israelites ask, ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’ Though historically inaccurate, as a commentary on people complaining about government, it serves its purpose very well.

    • Richard says:

      12:18pm | 28/07/11

      Sam, wrong. The Tea Party did not even exist until after the GFC. The Tea Party formed in response to the stimuli and the bailouts, in response to the blatant theft of the people’s money by the Government to help out their plutocrat partners on Wall St.

      Sam, there was never was and “urgent” need for Govt stimulus, that’s pure Keynesian fantasy. I refer you to this Daily Reckoning article to understand why: http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/irving-fisher-friedrich-hayek-and-milton-friedman-walk-into-a-bar/2011/07/23/

      I agree that the most important thing the US needs to do slash its Military Spending and bring the troops home, but in my opinion that will not be enough: they will also need to slash all government spending like Cameron has done the UK, and even still in my opinion that won’t be enough…

    • Richard says:

      12:27pm | 28/07/11

      Wrong Adam, who’s ever idea was it that we had to outsource compassion to the government? Everyone thinks we can just wash our hands of the burden of looking after the sick and the poor, just forget about it and get the government will take care of everything, the the government is inherently inefficient, at EVERYTHING.

      No, people must take responsibility for themselves, and people must individually decide to contribute to charitable organisations, and to do community work themselves, and must not turn a blind eye to the unfortunate people in our society and think “that’s the government’s problem”. Its not, its our problem as a society, and we must all develop the conscience and the compassion ourselves to deal with it.

      Because you see, if we don’t, if we just leave it to the Government, SOOOO much money gets wasted. I have a friend who, at 20 years old, purposefully broke his leg, and then refused to seek medical help for weeks, so that he could scam the Centrelink Disability Pension system. And he did! Ironically, there is nothing wrong with him at all, his leg healed up fine by itself, but its so funny to see him bung on a limp whenever he goes into centrelink, and for the rest of the time he’s absolutely fine, living it large on a Disability Pension for the rest of his long, healthy life.

      This isn’t an isolated situation. I have another friend, and his whole family are on Disability Pensions. Now his mum is genuinely disabled after she had a stroke, but she got a $1 Million payout from insurance, so she’s actually doing fine. But the Dad and the 2 sons are fine! The older boy is nearly 30, and he’s had some psychological problems in his life, but he’s not so disabled that he could never work again. And he got married to this girl, and now she lives there in the same house and gets paid a carer’s pension to “look after him”, but he’s fine! He’s happy and smiley and full of energy all the time!

      Its a dead set rort, and this type of situation is more the rule rather than the exception. The Government causes more problems than it solves and it WASTES! Oh how it wastes…

    • Economist says:

      12:46pm | 28/07/11

      Richard, your partly right, but you don’t need to take it to the extreme. Obama’s problem is two fold. He has added the problem by increasing both discretionary spending and mandatory (entitlement) spending. Mandatory spending (Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security and safety net has outstripped all other forms of spending. Discretionary (stimulus spending) while increasing it is not affecting the budget bottom line as much. The issue is that pulling the mandatory expenditure dramatically will have significant consequences. The safety net itself has kept 16 million from outright poverty and a further 29 million from plunging into poverty. Many of these people have serious issues that prohibit them from working. Do you really want these people on the streets?

      Also the US have a tax problem. 80% of their revenue comes from income and payroll taxes. Meaning that the recession they’re facing has reduced their tax base. They need urgent tax reform to introduce more indirect taxes. Regarding taxing the rich, of course the rich still pay more in tax then the middle and the poor, but they certainly don’t pay the income tax scales as legislated by the use of deductions /trusts/ offsets etc. Even Warren Buffet himself has stated that his rate of tax is less then his secretaries.

      Medicare and Medicaid are a problem because they service primarily those over 65 when people are the most expensive and resource intensive. The US need to introduce a medicare levy.

      Also while I’m at it, the extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have not stimulated investment or spending. Bush himself dramatically increased expenditure on medicare and medicaid by allowing wealthier individuals to access the system once they were over 65.

      The US also has a poor record when it comes to fraud management. I believe it is estimated that 15% of expenditure on SS and Medicare is extracted through fraud. In Australia the figure is closer to 5%, I’ll see if I can find these figures.  The issue being that the US public sector are not as efficient as our own. Their bureaucracy is worse than ours.

    • Andrew says:

      12:54pm | 28/07/11

      I am amazed you are still his “friend” Richard. As long as he can sleep at night i guess.

    • Lostie says:

      02:19pm | 28/07/11

      “No, people must take responsibility for themselves, and people must individually decide to contribute to charitable organisations, and to do community work themselves, and must not turn a blind eye to the unfortunate people in our society and think “that’s the government’s problem”. Its not, its our problem as a society, and we must all develop the conscience and the compassion ourselves to deal with it.”

      How do you propose to deal with people that don’t contribute sufficiently to the greater good? Those who do not contribute the amount of money that they are expected to contribute to these compassionate endeavors?

      Inevitable only those who care will be paying, while other pursue self interest.

      It’s a shame that you choose to support your ‘friend’ who scams link. But he is the problem, as are those who support him and let him get away with his conduct. Rather than reporting him, you choose to allow him to do it because, well… why do you allow him to scam the system?

    • Richard says:

      02:20pm | 28/07/11

      Economist, I have no doubt that you’re right, and I agree with what you say about the Bush tax cuts and about broadening the tax base to be less reliant on income taxes, but overall the Tea Party does call for smaller government, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I oppose even the Australian Medicare system (I think I must be the only person in this whole country who does), but I do, as I have stated on this forum many times, so that is an indication of how extreme my views may be compared to the orthodoxy of a modern mixed economy.

      Andrew, when a goat gets into the garden and eats all the vegetables, who do you blame: the goat or the farmer who left the gate wide open?

    • Blind Freddy says:

      02:38pm | 28/07/11

      @Richard

      “I have a friend who, at 20 years old, purposefully broke his leg, and then refused to seek medical help for weeks, so that he could scam the Centrelink Disability Pension system. And he did! Ironically, there is nothing wrong with him at all”

      Sounds to me like he has considerable problems! Psychological problems.

    • Lostie says:

      02:45pm | 28/07/11

      “Andrew, when a goat gets into the garden and eats all the vegetables, who do you blame: the goat or the farmer who left the gate wide open?”

      You sure as hell don’t let the Goat eat all of the Veges just to prove a point about leaving the gate open. Especially when you have a vested interest in those veges.

    • Luke says:

      03:47pm | 28/07/11

      Richard, your ideal of true capitalism is broken. I replied to you a few posts above - I obviously got the wrong comment to respond to.

      What stops collusion, monopolies and the like? If the government didn’t restrict them, then we’d be living under the thumb (even more) of only a handful of incredibly powerful corporations. The laws then are dictated and enforced by the richest 0.whatever% of the population. There is no capacity for the ‘little people’ to *peacefully* change the nature of the state.

      Economic theory is just that: theory. Once you add a single person to the mix it turns bad. This is true for any system, including political ones. You seem to want no government, but benevolent corporations to run everything. You want every person to be productive for those corporations.

      We’d end up like the early days of the USA where there were multiple systems of transport (trains), communications (telegraphs/phones) etc. Redundancies would be rife until a single entity simply bought out all others. How much registration did you want to pay to use a corporate traffic system? How do you think it would go where the rich can simply buy a “may do anything” licence so tehy can drive with total disregard for everyone’s safety?

      What of the povery stricken? No matter how awesome a person is, if they’re born into a dirt poor family with no way to access social security (because what business will start a charity?), that person will either die before adulthood or be denied critical education. How do you afford to send your kid to school if even getting access to food is difficult?

      If you admit that a government needs to exist, then what are they to do? As soon as they open a single department you will argue that they’re wasteful and should be a commercial entity. So what is the purpose of the government? They can have no power to do anything as it’s not like the politicians themselves will go door to door to enforce laws.

      Now I’m not saying that any other *pure* system of politics/economics is any better or worse, but by the very nature of people, there needs to be some sort of hybrid. Pure capitalism only equals freedom when you’re at the very top of the pyramid; anything else is slavery to your overlords.

    • Richard says:

      05:14pm | 28/07/11

      Everything you said is completely false, Luke. Big Corporations are only able to exist to the extent that Big Government exists. Without Big Government, Big Corporations would wither and die.

      Luke, I champion the small man, the small business owner, the community volunteer, the local charity group, that is the true essence of laissez-faire capitalism. You like everyone else thinks that things won’t be right unless they are controlled. Wrong! Relax your grip, let things go, she’ll be right mate, be optimistic, things usually work out for the best, don’t be such a control freak, live and let be, the free market is like nature, it always finds a way. You can either fight it or you can embrace it.

      I say embrace the free market, and all other freedoms, because I have faith in humanity. There’s no need for everyone to be so cynical about their fellow man. We’ll get through this if we have respect for one another and don’t go around pretending that we are the only one with all the answers and everyone else needs to be controlled. No, its not like that.

      Every is rational and intelligent to a pretty big extent, and respond to incentives. In a free market, the incentives are driven by what everyone wants and needs predominantly. What is so wrong with serving one another through the mechanism of the free market?

    • Andrew says:

      08:54pm | 28/07/11

      I don’t think we should be applauding individuals who abuse the system, we are above that. They are breaking the law plain and simple and I hope the law comes down on them like a ton of bricks.
      If the government is not the safety net for disadvantaged & needy in society then who is?

    • Andrew says:

      09:14pm | 28/07/11

      Dubya penned the bailout for wall street, another one Obama had to inherit. Double standards as always, republicans have to bailout wall street, democrats bail out the poor.

    • andye says:

      10:28pm | 28/07/11

      @Richard - Ohhh, you are an Objectivist.

    • Knemon says:

      09:24am | 28/07/11

      Meanwhile Tiny Abbott runs around Australia telling us the sky is falling, stating it’s all doom and gloom, consistently talking down our economy…perhaps Abbott actually wants to see a similar situation here at home as we are seeing in the USA…give it a rest rAbbott…the USA could only be so lucky to have it as good as we have it here in Australia.

    • David says:

      11:46am | 28/07/11

      Too right. Any time I hear about the US debt crisis, my thoughts immediately turn to Tony Abbott. Well spotted Knemon.

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      11:49am | 28/07/11

      .....and as if on cue, another leftard takes a chance to have another crack at Tony Abbott in an article discussing American debt…...which doesnt ONCE mention Abbott in aforementioned article.
      Unbefrigginbelievable.
      And for what it’s worth….yeah America is stuffed. Which is a tragedy because the extended family over there (like so many other normal everyday Americans) are both working reasonable jobs, paying off a mortgage on a property that has lost $250,000 worth of value since 08, and struggling to keep their heads above water. Add retirement savings that have gone south with no prospect of improvement in the next few years, and they (and their aquaintances) are super concerned that things are only weeks away from getting even worse.
      Actually come to think of it…..real estate bubble, super going backwards, new taxes being introduced at the worst time, growing cost of living pressures…...

    • Steve says:

      12:24pm | 28/07/11

      Knemon. It is a “debt” crisis. Unmanageable debt caused by the Govt spending in excess of tax earnings.

      The crisis got to this point due to ignorance withinn the community and polititions not raising concerns earlier.

      Abbott was part of a Government that took over a $96 billion debt from Keating and turned it into a net credit of $20 billion. This was done largely by recording 11 budget surpluses.

      Mr Swann has turned that credit of $20 billion to a new debt ceiling of $200 billion in 5 years. This has been done with 5 budget deficits despite introducing new taxes.

      I guess you would prefer Mr Abbott to not raise any concerns about our position and allow Mr swann to borrow whatever he likes. But isn’t that how the US got into trouble in the first place?

      Instead of focusing on the opposition who are doing there job very well you should focus on the Government and in particular how Mr Swann plans to repay his $200 billion debt and how the introduction of nex taxes will impact on our economy. Those things are weighing down our economy far more than any utterances from Mr Abbott.

      Does Swann have a plan toi repay debt that you are aware of?

    • Andrew says:

      12:44pm | 28/07/11

      I wonder if that gloom presented on a daily basis is denting consumer and business confidence in an economy that is still growing.

    • Adam Diver says:

      01:04pm | 28/07/11

      Funny, I would look at the US and Greece, and use thier example as one not to follow. Whilst Abbott is guilty of sensationalition its a far less chagre then incompend economic managers who use the socialist policies of failed economies as there guide.

      My personal experience and many others suggest the mining boom, is covering up some very, very large cracks in our own economy. So whilst it feels good to compare to troubled economies like the US and get some smug satisfaction, its hardly practical and if they fail, the EU and the US, our economy may be “doom and gloom”.

    • Knemon says:

      02:59pm | 28/07/11

      What we’re seeing in the USA is political manoeuvring and point scoring from both sides of the political fence. Tony Abbott is continually running down the Australian economy for the very same reasons, it’s nothing more than scaremongering to the investors / consumers to weaken confidence in our economy, therefore it is relevant.

      I remember not that many years ago when the coalition were suggesting the same things to Labor, they were equating it to treason, funny how all of a sudden this is different. Just more double standards from the conservative side of politics, it’s OK for the LNP to talk down our economy but god help us if Labor does.

      @ Steve - selling off gold bullion (at a massive loss) and 200 plus billion dollars’ worth of assets is an easy way to produce a fiscal surplus; it doesn’t make you an economic genius as some might suggest.

    • RyaN says:

      03:13pm | 28/07/11

      @Knemon: I think you will find that consumer sentiment has nothing to do with Tony Abbott and everything to do with Juliar Gillard. People are understandably nervous about our economy since we a prime minister and a treasurer who cannot be trusted to tell us the truth, not to mention their incessant assault on the pockets of ordinary folk.

      But its all Tony Abbotts fault to you lot of crazies hey!

    • Joel B1 says:

      03:22pm | 28/07/11

      The nice version.

      “give it a rest rAbbott”

      I distinctly recall Tory saying that The Punch would not and does not publish derogatory nicknames of politicians. But I guess that’s only for ALP politicians.


      And “r” isn’t exactly next to “shift-a” or the “spacebar” on a QWERTY keyboard is it?


      That OK with you Tory?

      PS I’ve got copies for your editor.

    • Steve says:

      03:30pm | 28/07/11

      Knemon. You do realise that without true believers like yourself the treasurer would not be able to get away with his spin? There should be a political price to pay for economic mismangement. Automatically defending Swann’s incompetance gives him licence to continue because he is not experiencing the appropriate political pain.

      Please step out of the way for a while and let Swann be held to account and it might actually improve his performance and our economy would benefit.

    • Knemon says:

      03:39pm | 28/07/11

      Joel B1 @  03:22pm - It was a typo and I apologise for offending you.

    • Sam says:

      09:37am | 28/07/11

      Anyone who thinks the USA will fix this problem need to have a closer look. The Pollies in the US are the same as the ones here, they care about one thing and one thing only, getting in power!.

      This power then allows them get to the trough and gorge themselves silly. Whilst in Power Congressmen or Senators (here and there) do backroom deals with big buisiness to pass legislation that helps them, so when the Pollie finishes his stint at the trough he is then rewarded with a cushy board position on the big companies board or directors.

      We saw this with the likes of the monetary advisers to Clinton and Bush (1&2) who passed certain legislation that helped the banks increase their dangerous practice, these advisors then got multi-million dollar positions on the boards of big banks.

      It doesnt matter who is power Democrat, Republican, Labor or Liberal, they care about themselves first, their retirement second, and you a distant last.

    • AdamC says:

      09:48am | 28/07/11

      Politics is a funny thing. Very few people actually disagree on what needs to be done to stabilise the US’s yawning deficit, yet actually accomplishing anything is like pulling teeth. The US needs to slash entitlements and raise taxes. That is effectively a statement of fact. While I wouldn’t favour an ultra-auterity approach right now, balancing the budget must be the US’s near-term priority.

    • Anubis says:

      10:16am | 28/07/11

      And where are the Economists in all this. Surely they were busy advising Government on how to handle economic matters. These great financial gurus who couldn’t see the GFC coming. Now our Government is reliant on them for guidance on how to set up wonderful things like the Carbon Tax. Have faith in Economists, people - America did.

    • Steve says:

      12:48pm | 28/07/11

      There is only one economist somewhere. The rest just cut and paste the original comment. I wonder who it is?

      The same applies in Australia, especially with our own cut and paste economic journalists.

      Every cut and paste journalist has bought the Swann spin that stimulas spending saved Australia. Yet every day I have spoken to common sense people who agree that stimulas spending has simply delayed the GFC and will make it worse. Why is there no Australian economic journalist prepared to think for themselves?

    • MarK says:

      01:55pm | 28/07/11

      Oh the economists were there right on cue when Joyce warned of this. They were propping up Swannie saying bad Barnaby Labor good, no way will anything bad happen.

      Go forbid they could be wrong about anything else too….like the carbon tax predictions of Green utopia. Still the carbon tax will fix the climate problems the…......oh wait.

    • David S says:

      04:02pm | 28/07/11

      @ Steve,
      Huh?  Keynesianism came through the financial crisis with flying colours.  Did you not see that employment was sustained and tax revenues did not collapse?
      Perhaps you actually want high unemployment and a downward spiral of ever shrinking tax collections.
      Your solution to the financial crisis seems to be:

      1. Austerity measures to depress demand
      2. ??????
      3. Recovery

    • Tim says:

      10:33am | 28/07/11

      I hope they delault. I want to see what happens!!! I can picture Obama announcing it now, ‘suck it everyone! if im going down im taking you with me!’

      PS, they need Peter Costello.

    • atthepub says:

      10:39am | 28/07/11

      Check out the barefoot investor website, it’s a treat.

    • Zaf says:

      10:53am | 28/07/11

      All very well, Punch Team, but for a balanced view you really need to add a graph showing Government tax takings as a proportion of GDP over the same time.  I do know that over the period for which you show the deficit rising, income tax and corporate tax rates in the US fell.  The US has more of a revenue problem than an expenditure problem.

    • David S says:

      04:06pm | 28/07/11

      Onya Zaf!
      Just found this post.
      It seems people never think of revenues when talking of deficits, only expenditures.
      Some writers even confuse the 2 concepts.
      See also my comments about the huge pool of savings which supply siders said would be used for investment and therefore job creation, but instead is languising in its’ trillions in billionaires’ bank accounts.

    • Zeta says:

      11:29am | 28/07/11

      Just on that point about bonds:

      After the post-GFC bailouts, one of the best and most hilarious scams Sachs & Stanley & co played was, as described by Matt Taibi, the Dollar Store Scam, popularised by The Sting.

      In the Australian context, what they were really doing was closer to what Balkan criminal gangs do to ATMs - building an almost identical looking ATM shell, bolting it onto a real ATM, and waiting as unsuspecting punters go to withdraw funds that never arrive. 

      Almost overnight, the big investment banks disguised themselves as commercial lenders. High risk, coke snorting, stupid shoulder pad wearing American Psychos obfuscated their outlines through the haze left by the economic bombs going off in ‘08, by the time the smoke cleared, they’d remade themselves as buttoned down, Oliver Peoples wearing Federal stiffs.

      Cloaked as conservative bank holding companies the big banks were eligible for a metric f***-tonne of not only TARP bailout money ear marked for the risky venture capitalists but Federally guaranteed support for otherwise ‘normal’ traders caught up in the maelstrom. The centrepiece of that was the ability to take out zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve.

      Giving an investment bank interest free loans is kind of like the scenario in Brian Azzarello’s 100 Bullets, where a mysterious agent shows up to give criminals an unregistered handgun and 100 untraceable bullets to do with as they please. The drama is not in the violence that follows, but what exactly they choose to do with that freedom.

      For Sachs, it demonstrated that their investors, for all their faults, had a wicked sense of humour. They simply lent the money back to the Federal Reserve by buying 4-5 per cent return bonds. Every time a dividend paid, they’d repay the original loan, take out more, rinse repeat. It was, and is, a licence to print money.

      Now if the bonds were to be suddenly devalued, you’d think, at least the banks would finally get their cumupence.

      You’d be wrong. Because what the Fed gave the big banks while they were wearing their Groucho Marks moustaches and glasses were ‘non-recourse loans’.

      That means the Bonds themselves, once bought with the Fed’s money, were held on the Fed’s books as collateral. If they make a profit, the banks cash them out and return the loan - if they don’t, the Federal reserve keeps them. Which means, post debt crisis trigger, the Federal Reserve will be stuck with not only the bonds, but every under performing security that an investor with access to Reserve Loans doesn’t want to wear.

      If the consequences were’t so dire, you can almost be smug about the neck high bullshit these twerps have got themselves into.

    • Richard says:

      12:05pm | 28/07/11

      Exactly Zeta, this whole kleptarchic, plutocratic, corporato-fascist edifice must fall. Power to the People!

    • BJA says:

      11:37am | 28/07/11

      I wonder if they think the Trillions of dollars they’ve spent on a flea ridden desert have been worth it?

    • Silver says:

      11:42am | 28/07/11

      I think this article is missing one of the largest pieces of the puzzle.  The Bush tax cuts.  Those will become the single biggest cause of insufficient revenue the US government faces.

      Of course, the other, longer term problem is the fractional reserve banking system.

    • Steve says:

      12:40pm | 28/07/11

      The US situation is so bad it is beyond the politics. Both sides have been culpible in this mess.

      To have any chance to get out of this it will require tax increases and spending cuts. The trouble is that their economy is fragile and would weaken further if those measures were taken. Of course there is never a good time to increase taxes and cut spending. Increasing the debt ceiling will get them through the next election cycle and hand the problem over to the next president.

      The lesson for Australia and other nations is to not let the debt get out of control in the first place.

      We need to keep this simple. Whatever level your taxes you cant’ spend more than you earn every year for a few decades without the chickens coming home to roost at some point.

    • lesley laurel says:

      12:00pm | 28/07/11

      United States Of America has let down Uncle Sam .
      Thirty years of continuous rises in debt have reduced the superpower to a third world banana republic with no end to huge rises in debt in sight.
      Did USA really win the Cold War just to get a huge heavy dose of economic cold or influenza ? Is it a coincidence that the fall of russian communism coincides with USA huge rises in debts?? Why does USA debts never go downwards not once since 1980 ?? Why is this so? Please Explain.Does the USA economy need a punch or a counter punch? A kick or a kiss?

    • Nick42 says:

      04:18pm | 28/07/11

      Lesley to put in a simplistic manner what happened was that Reagan managed to outspend the Soviets on the arms race due to earlier presidents - especially Eisenhower, creating a great economy that he could then use. He was actually pretty hopeless as a president even though people incorrectly credit him with winning the Cold War.
      The Soviets on the other hand could not keep up as their economy had steadily be going down the tubes since WWII due to the Politburo making stupider and stupider decisions as they had created such a situation of fear in their country as they where being given more and more false information from their underlings which means they were making decisions on situations that over the years were more and more disassociated with reality.
      Clinton tried to fix it but all he managed to do was limit the damage and then Bush Jr and Obama have just gone overboard with debt.

    • Andrew says:

      12:23pm | 28/07/11

      Embarrassing looking at that chart for Reagan and the Bush’s.
      Looks like Clinton managed it well, and Obama, well what a poison chalice he inherited.

    • libertarian vegetarian says:

      03:49pm | 28/07/11

      Of for sure.
      Bush Jnr went up 4 tr in 8 years. Thats .5tr pa
      Obama went up 5.5tr in 2 years Thats 2.75tr pa
      So yeah, I can see how it’s all Bushes fault.

      You might also want to have a look at the row along the bottom, showing which party was in control of congress at the time. You can see the sharpest increases occur when the Dems are in control of congress, regardless of who the President is.  Reagan had a Democrat controlled congress for most of the time and Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress.

    • Andrew says:

      08:31pm | 28/07/11

      10% unemployment, GFC, and a war to pay for Obama. Makes it pretty much impossible.

    • Billy J says:

      12:40pm | 28/07/11

      Say goodbye to Hollywood.

    • Glen T says:

      02:05pm | 28/07/11

      You need to adjust that graph for inflation by putting all the values into 2011 dollars. Less dramatic, but more representative of cost of repaying the debt.

      One of the things the crisis vividly shows is the massive drag on the US’s economy of not having a financially-efficient health system.

      One thing your article could have drawn out a bit more is the roles of the President, the Congress and the Senate. You might think that the President i the one that writes the US budget, but it is in fact the Congress. And this crisis is very much the result of four decades of Congress failing to come to grips with its financial responsibilities, but instead spending for short-term political gain. The examples are pretty endless, but the Farm Bill and ethanol/corn subsidies are pretty notorious. Note that this is a long-run crisis, there’s no economic reason for things to have come to a head this week or even this year—the reasons things are happening right now are political.

      It’s the demand for a sudden fix where the Tea Party is so unrealistic that even John McCain thinks they dreaming. A real fix would go through the budget line by line, removing waste, rorts and pork barrelling; it would socialise the funding of the US health system; it would make social security more efficient (it’s hard to think of any less efficient way of adequately feeding the poor than the US’s food stamp system); it would fix the US military’s incredibly wasteful acquisition processes. All these are long-term measures, and many of them run counter to the philosophy of the Tea Party, so the Tea Party are as much a part of the problem as your traditional Democrats and Republicans.

      But you’ve got to question if the Tea Party even wants a real fix. And many people worry that they do not. That is, that this crisis isn’t fundamentally economic at all, but is a political crisis of the first order—the Tea Party calling an end to the US Government.

      And that’s where your article misses the point in a big way—this is a political crisis with an economic justification. Looking deeply into the economics doesn’t tell you much about the cause and what happens next as looking at the politics and philosophy of US conservatism. And there are a lot of forces there encouraging the Tea Party to raze the US Government to the ground, as the most expeditious way to return to the Small Government they hold dear.

    • MarkS says:

      02:45pm | 28/07/11

      To me the USA today looks a lot like the French 3rd Republic. On the left & the right there appears to be a belief that their political foes have no legitimacy. A fundamental disconnect between democratic practice & principle.

      America always had a strong anarchist apocalypticist element to its internal myth making, which is often mislabelled as libertarian. The Tea Party at one extreme & much of the left wing intelligentsia at the other resemble each other more in this regard then they would be comfortable admitting.

      The lack of good will, the unwillingness to accept that the other side can be trusted & has any legitimacy is poisoning the well of their democracy.  The resulting inability to balance the books is only a symptom of the underlying disease.

    • ausspud says:

      02:15pm | 28/07/11

      I have an idea,why not issue home loans to the unemployed or low income earners.Nothing can go wrong there aye mr clinton.

    • Bill Bonner says:

      02:28pm | 28/07/11

      “Neither side budging,” is a subhead from yesterday’s New York Times.

      It is widely assumed – even by us – that they’re going to budge soon. Otherwise, all Hell will break loose…and they’ll be blamed. The Democrats are afraid they’ll be blamed more than the Republicans. The Republicans are afraid they’ll be blamed more than the Democrats. And neither side really has the guts or gumption to play this game of chicken to the end.

      Instead, they’ll budge. And they’ll come up with a solution that will be every bit as effective as the European’s solution to the Greek debt situation.

      “Hogwash,” is how Felix Zulauf describes the European solution. It is a political fix…not a market solution. The market was discounting Greek debt by half. The politicos gave it a 20% haircut, lent more money, and kicked the can down the road again.

      Hogwash is what we’ll get in the US too. Even worse. No discount. And a bigger kick.

      The real solution is the one neither Democrats nor Republicans can tolerate – letting Mr. Market sort it out himself. Mr. Market is a pro at this sort of thing. He’ll get the job done. He’d probably write down the value of all debt…and toss out the stuff that can’t be repaid. In a few months, the crisis will be over. Then, the economy could stage a real recovery.

      “Bill, are you saying that there wouldn’t be grave consequences to a US default? How can you be sure it wouldn’t trigger a full depression?”

      Hey, we’re not sure of anything. And we wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see a depression. Unemployment would probably soar. House prices would collapse even further. Stocks would probably get sawed in half. And GDP would go negative in a big way.

      What’s more, real interest rates would be higher…investors would be wary of US government debt, making it harder for the feds to continue their old free-spending ways too.

      Atlantic Magazine lists “13 ways a debt ceiling breach would destroy the economy.” It’s the usual claptrap. Default would send interest rates up. Higher interest rates would make recovery harder, and so forth.

      And don’t forget that the feds send out 88 million checks a month. If something were to happen – such as a default, which kept people from getting their checks – it would be a serious blow to the economy. Without this consumer income, the economy would go into a kamikaze dive.

      All true. And all nonsense.

      We don’t doubt that a default by the feds, even a technical, temporary default, could cause the economy to sink. But the way we see it, the economy still needs to reckon with all the problems it encountered in the crisis of ’07-’09. The problem was debt. There was too much of it. Until it shakes this dust off its sandals, it can’t build on a firm foundation.

      The authorities tried to deal with that problem by adding more dust. More debt. A new GAO study shows that in the ’07-’09 crisis, the feds put out an amount greater than the entire GDP of the nation in order to stimulate the economy. What did it get for all that money?

      Nothing but more debt.

      Why?

      The Keynesian stimulus model stops working when the economy shifts from adding debt to destroying it. Then, you can put out all the additional cash and credit you want. It won’t do any good. Households are reluctant to borrow; first, because they don’t have the income or the collateral to support it, and second, because they’ve already got too much debt and are eager to get rid of it.

      When the economy goes into a credit contraction, trying to add more debt is like pouring whiskey down the throat of a passed-out drunk. It’s not the kind of medicine he needs.

      He needs to dry out. And get rid of the debt. That’s what a depression…a default…a bear market…and higher interest rates can do for an economy.

      The sooner the better.

      http://dailyreckoning.com/

    • Thommo says:

      02:57pm | 28/07/11

      The Federal reserve can wipe off $1.6 trillion debt with the stroke of a pen. See Youtube Videos by ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich for the real story. Both parties are War parties and could easily get back in the black by slashing the military spending. Welfare payments are covered until 2030 so there is no real crisis apart from the downgrade from AAA - America will of course blame China for not floating their currency.

    • savvy chick says:

      03:25pm | 28/07/11

      In his business bestseller, The Only Three Questions That Count, billionaire investor Ken Fisher talks about how anyone can become a successful investor by asking just three questions all the time. ‘What do I believe that’s wrong?’ is the first of those questions. And we would certainly like to recommend this question, if not the entire book, to the US policymakers. For they have come to believe a certain destructive myth, which if not corrected soon enough, can have very bad consequences. We are referring to the commonly held view that China is the predominant holder of US debt. Furthermore, a comparison between the US and Japanese debt situation will invariably lead to the statement that while Japan’s debt is all domestically owned, US debt is owned by the Chinese.

      However, nothing could be further from the truth. A study done by Businessinsider with data gathered from credible US Government agencies has really blown the lid off the myth about China owning most of the US Government debt. Of course, at 8%, it is the largest foreign owner of US debt but that still is a tiny percentage. In fact, foreigners and foreign Governments own just about a third of total US debt. The majority of it, more than 2/3rd of the total US debt, is actually owned by the US citizens!

      Here’s another interesting statistic. Amongst US institutions, it is the US Federal Reserve that is one of the biggest holders of US sovereign debt. Yes, it is the same debt that it has bought by printing money under the garb of quantitative easing. Through this act, it is not only laying the ground for a potentially inflationary Armageddon, but it has also kept interest rates artificially low and close to zero. The end result? Well, negative real interest rates for all the holders of US debt. In other words, rather than receiving money, US citizens are actually paying their Government to hold its debt. However, it would be wrong to blame the US policymakers alone. Most Governments across the world seem to be adopting this strategy to lower their interest burdens. Little wonder, gold is setting new records every day. After all, it cannot be printed at will.

    • Thommo says:

      03:17pm | 28/07/11

      If you haven’t yet seen the Keynes v Hayek Rap battles on Youtube - YOU MUST DO SO! They are without doubt the most clever videos ever created. The ending on Part 2 sums up the situation brilliantly - Hayek wins the battle easily but the victory is still awarded to Keynes by the Crony Capitalists that control everything - effectively destroying any hopes of a true free market.

    • Richard says:

      03:27pm | 28/07/11

      +1 Like!

    • Kyle says:

      03:41pm | 28/07/11

      Go watch The Zeitgeist Addendum. I didn’t understand it either.

    • adam cairns says:

      10:40am | 29/07/11

      A very good idea. It clears up a lot.

    • John says:

      06:55pm | 28/07/11

      The entire world is living off a future that isn’t there. This means those with wealth today will most likely lose it all in the future. This includes bank deposits, house’s, cars and shares. Those that caused this mess will most likely secure hard assets while everyone else takes the loss, with years and years of work gone down the drain. Our today consumption is fueling the majority loss of everyone in the future. This is what happens when you have a powerful banking elite corrupting western politicians to deregulate so they can make more money, make nations unstable for their benefit and to loot nations for all they are worth.

    • Glen says:

      07:05pm | 28/07/11

      I think Bob Brown’s leary smirk will look good depicted on the million dollar coin The Mint will need to issue, that is once hyperinflation begins from next week. God help us, we are in the hands of ghetto socialist Americans and Labor.

    • TheRaptured says:

      08:11pm | 28/07/11

      The Rapture is the key to bursting the world economy, the US economy will wobble right up to the day the rapture happens. When hundreds of millions of people are raptured, the world governments will immediately freeze world finances. Why? Identity fraud will be rampant immediately by those claiming the assets of those that have been raptured. A new financial system based on the BANCOR will probably be re-booted with ten working days. Anybody who wants to buy or sell will have to have some sort personal of ID verification. Either Biometrical or chip implant to identify they are still here and part of the existing left behind population. The government are the biggest asset thieves and do not like competition at all.  The architecture of the new economic system will be the carbon tax economy, where everybody on earth will have to register to then transact again.  This is the hellish world you all will be facing. Europe will be the shining light in this re-booted world economy with germany as the main engine of global finances. You have been warned!

    • Kipling says:

      11:01am | 30/07/11

      Back in the good ol’ 80s an infamouse leader of a Western Capitalist democracy, one Maggie Thatcher has been often quoted as quipping “Socialism is fine until they run out of other people’s money to spend…”
      Isn’t it just a tad ironic that she missed the obvious close link then between Capitalism and Socialism?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter