|
On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place.
Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations.
|
On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place.
Are you shitting me? There are plenty of other countries who haven't recently defaulted on their debt. If I was an investor I would go to those. You do realize that default means that we go to investors who have US bonds and just tell them that they aren't getting a dime. That tends to hurt our ability to be a "safe bet"
|
United States24799 Posts
On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place.
As others are pointing out, you are downplaying something you should not downplay. The credibility of the US when it comes to its financial obligations must be maintained, and will not be... should there be a default or anything worse.
|
On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:
[quote]
Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations.
Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant.
|
On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant.
"Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack."
Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues.
|
On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering.
Ah, yes. The expert is speaking.
I wonder why the potential default of Greece in the Eurozone caused so much turmoil worldwide that even Obama and Geithner started to give advice in this internal, european affair, while the default of the US is "not that serious".
+ Show Spoiler +2: Unusual concern about typically-safe Treasuries “The Treasury market is part of the bedrock of the financial system. The stability and safety of the securities issued by the U.S. government benefit both the investors who hold them and taxpayers who can borrow more cheaply because this debt is trusted as safe and liquid. And because Treasuries are so central, there is real concern about spillovers to other financial markets and interest rates,” Eberly said. Other financial experts that I spoke with off the record suggested that a loss of confidence in T-bills could ignite a global economic collapse that would significantly eclipse the 2007 financial crisis. Theoretically, the following would happen as a U.S. default ripples through the global financial system: Most large financial institutions (banks, insurance companies, pension funds) would be forced to replace investments in AAA securities (basically treasuries), and replace that collateral with equivalents. These institutions would have to liquidate trillions in holdings because of lack of compliance, creating massive worldwide instability. U.S. towns and cities would be forced into bankruptcy. Pensions would be severely impacted with the U.S. dollar no longer being worth a dollar. Ultimately, a deflationary period would begin. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/economic-armageddon-a-list-of-what-happens-if-the-us-defaults/30828
|
On October 10 2013 03:51 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2013 01:49 MstrJinbo wrote:1. If the budget is not passed until the 17th of October, the US may have to file bankruptcy within November, likely causing another global financial crisis. Where in the world did you hear this? Seriously where? http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/[...]"The Bipartisan Policy Center echoes this view. In an updated analysis published this morning, it estimates that the “X date” defined as “the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st. Analysts from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs also support the view that while the Treasury may be able to limp along during the second half of October, it’s highly unlikely the U.S. would avoid default without the debt ceiling being raised before November 1st." Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/10/08/when-will-u-s-actually-hit-the-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2hFJ6qnas" Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. I don't think you understand how bad this would actually be. At the very least the rates on US treasury notes would go through the goddam roof making it damn near impossible for the government to borrow any money and further saddling the US with a harder debt burden. You would also probably have rampant inflation. You don't have to be an economics major to understand that those things are probably not good.
A side point of this is that if we are really that fragile, we should take some steps to shore things up in the long term after this stupid crisis is over. Like getting to where the budget is balanced and we are actually paying off some of our debts instead of borrowing more to pay the ones we have now. If nothing else, the Tea Party idiots have shown us that the way our government spending now works is almost as stupid and unsustainable in the long term as the Tea Party itself.
|
On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:20 MstrJinbo wrote:
[quote]
Ok judging from the sources you provide the US government is not filing for bankruptcy in November. Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues.
lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic.
|
On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:[quote] Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic.
No, we're just terrified that maybe you're not a troll and there are more of you.
|
On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:[quote] Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic.
Its kind of annoying to have an entire discussion get sidetracked by some guy who is just clearly wrong about the impact of a particular event. There was good debate going on and then you had to come in and be like "default doesn't even matter". Well, both sides have basically confirmed that you're straight up wrong on that issue, so we'd like to get back to the matter at hand.
|
On October 10 2013 03:59 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:[quote] Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic. Its kind of annoying to have an entire discussion get sidetracked by some guy who is just clearly wrong about the impact of a particular event. There was good debate going on and then you had to come in and be like "default doesn't even matter". Well, both sides have basically confirmed that you're straight up wrong on that issue, so we'd like to get back to the matter at hand.
Let me quote the original poster's words again.
the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option.
I stand by my words: It's not that serious.
|
On October 10 2013 04:00 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:59 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:
[quote]
It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy".
However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post.
It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic. Its kind of annoying to have an entire discussion get sidetracked by some guy who is just clearly wrong about the impact of a particular event. There was good debate going on and then you had to come in and be like "default doesn't even matter". Well, both sides have basically confirmed that you're straight up wrong on that issue, so we'd like to get back to the matter at hand. Let me quote the original poster's words again. I stand by my words: It's not that serious.
And I will stand by my words that you are outright wrong about that. The US failing to pay its debts is one of the most serious threats facing the world at the moment. The crash that would ensue would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
|
On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:On October 10 2013 02:39 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 10 2013 02:32 Restrider wrote:[quote] Err... I don't know if I got something wrong, but: "“the date on which the United States will be unable to meet all of its financial obligations in full and on time,” will come between October 22nd and November 1st" equals the very defenition of insolvency: + Show Spoiler +In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz2hFNlJoh1Though - as shown in the spoilers - it is not equal to bankruptcy, it is still the first step to it. Edit: And figuratively speaking, this whole process is the American political system filing for bankruptcy (I don't know if this metaphor exists in English, though). Bankruptcy is very different. Saying the us will go into bankruptcy in nov over the debt ceiling is flat out wrong. It might happen sometime down the road but not in the next month. Edit. Maybe this will help with the distinction http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance) It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy". However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post. It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic.
That being you I suppose? Spouting obvious nonsense and then acting as if one's idiocy was just a misunderstanding...
On-Topic:
Of course the default seems unlikely, right now. And the markets are counting on a solution.
But for that to happen, either the Democrats or the Republicans have to give in, which results in one of them losing their face. Or you would have Obama just ignoring the debt ceiling, which is also discussed.
The point is that one party acts irrationally. And predictions of irrational groups/people/parties based on reason, tend to be frequently wrong.
Hopefully the pressure is high enough to force the politicians to reason.
|
On October 10 2013 04:00 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:59 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:42 Restrider wrote:
[quote]
It is true that I worded it wrong using "bankruptcy".
However having the US default isn't something to not take seriously. Because if the US defaults, I can pretty much assure you that due to the implosion of the world financial system, the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. Of course not directly in November as I mistakenly expressed in my post.
It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic. Its kind of annoying to have an entire discussion get sidetracked by some guy who is just clearly wrong about the impact of a particular event. There was good debate going on and then you had to come in and be like "default doesn't even matter". Well, both sides have basically confirmed that you're straight up wrong on that issue, so we'd like to get back to the matter at hand. Let me quote the original poster's words again. I stand by my words: It's not that serious.
What happens to the US when no one in the world is willing to give you money, because you just told everyone you do own money to fuck themselves?
The only thing you can do is keep printing Dollars but since you just told the world you dont pay your bills they are barely worth the paper they are printed on and then the US economy looks a lot like Zimbabwe.
Ergo you can very much go bankrupt over this.
|
0% chance of a default. If the U.S. were to default, then interest rates on USG borrowings would increase, this would result in interest payments becoming a much greater portion of the budget than they are now, and would push aside other programs, which the Democrats love. President Obama absolutely has to keep interest rates at bargain basement otherwise the economy blows up due to the near doubling of the debt since his inauguration.
|
This is getting real old real quick.
I'm glad something as stupid as this doesn't hit people who are making all the important decisions like it hits the rest of us. Otherwise they might be motivated to come to some kind of resolution!
|
On October 10 2013 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:00 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:59 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:57 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:54 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 03:50 Nick Drake wrote:On October 10 2013 03:48 Jormundr wrote:On October 10 2013 03:45 Nick Drake wrote:
[quote]
It's really not that serious. Stop buying the fearmongering. Are you on heroin or do you not realize that the value of fiat currency is directly tied to confidence in the government that issues the currency? And the US will continue to be the safest bet in the world whether or not this political charade takes place. Actually if the US defaults on its obligations (it won't, but just for sake of argument) it would probably be safer to invest in countries that aren't defaulting on their obligations. Well we at least agree on one thing: The default won't happen. That makes discussing it further a bit irrelevant. "Oh shit, I'm really REALLY incorrect about this. Time to backtrack." Default is unlikely, but still definitely possible if the intransigence continues. lol, some of you guys are desperate to "win" on the internet. It's really pathetic. Its kind of annoying to have an entire discussion get sidetracked by some guy who is just clearly wrong about the impact of a particular event. There was good debate going on and then you had to come in and be like "default doesn't even matter". Well, both sides have basically confirmed that you're straight up wrong on that issue, so we'd like to get back to the matter at hand. Let me quote the original poster's words again. the bankruptcy of the US will become a very realistic option. I stand by my words: It's not that serious. What happens to the US when no one in the world is willing to give you money, because you just told everyone you do own money to fuck themselves? The only thing you can do is keep printing Dollars but since you just told the world you dont pay your bills they are barely worth the paper they are printed on and then the US economy looks a lot like Zimbabwe. Ergo you can very much go bankrupt over this.
"Not worth a continental".
+ Show Spoiler +
Maybe idolizing the founding fathers isn't enough, we must also experience life as they did lol.
|
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:
Heya!
That's a very nice post, thank you for writing all of that down. It's not quite convincing though.
That's probably because for arguments to be effective they need to be specific to who(or more specifically what) you are arguing and I wasn't really arguing to convince you. I was arguing to convince Alex. My ultimate point to Alex was that he should educate himself more on what's actually being proposed before deciding what perspective he wants to view the situation through. This would probably be why that post didn't convince you of anything.
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:
First, I meant sound in the colloquial way (you know, because this isn't a math problem) to mean: "if you accept the premises, you reach the same conclusion". Apologies for sounding like a math nerd, as I've done a bit more than a Philosophy 101 I start using the terminology everywhere. What I meant to communicate, though, is that Alex's point was not 'wacky' but just a different position from what was common in the thread, and acceptable for people with different premises (i.e., not an oxymoron).
The term "sound" being used when applied to an argument only means the philosophical definition of the word or that that something in a way that it won't fall apart right away. If you have a definition for this more widely used definition of the word sound I would like to hear it because I honestly do not see how using that word makes sense even in the context of what you are saying you wanted it to mean. But if this is what you meant to say that's ok. If Alex wants to take a different position than what's common in the thread that's fine. What's not fine is for him or anybody to expect to be respected or to have their points respected if they won't back them up with anything. Especially by their own admittance we know that he hasn't done hardly any research on the subject.
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:.
As for my prediction regarding the Republicans finding common ground with the Democrats on some non ACA, or marginally ACA topic, that was pure speculation (as it HAS TO be because it's the future). I think we all agree that attacking the ACA is the strongest card the Republicans can play because the Democrats are so very invested in it, which was the rationale for playing it. Whether they will never concede for anything else depends on your own level of jadedness. While I respect people that think the Republicans are unreasonable nutcases (Palin, right), I'm not quite that jaded and believe in a standard compromise as we had last time.
I want to preface this with the following: I don't know what your prediction was, it's lost in the pages of the thread so i'm going to go off of what I can see in your post here.
I can see the rationale in doing this for the republicans. I can agree that attacking the ACA in this method is the strongest play they can make. I won't use the language you used when you said "card". Card suggests it's part of the game by design. Which is part of my problem with this. The founding fathers did not have this in mind when setting up the government. They did not decide to add yet another check for a minority to surppress an already passed law. Usually I wouldn't bring up a point like this but it works here specifically because republicans are the ones more than anybody that bring up the idea that the government should act the way the founding fathers (in their eyes) decided it should act. That's my first point and while it may seem a bit underwhelming keep it in mind when reading the following parts. My second point is that just because I can see it being a strong play doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The reason why I talked about how we're not working on to weaponize the aids virus is because just because something CAN work doesn't automatically mean you should do it. This is still applicable when something is a strong tactic.
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:If we argumentify this analogy, it comes out as: Might does not make right, we need to make a moral decision. Example, chemical warfare. But this does not apply to this case for several reasons: First, chemical and biological weapons were used actively, and remain used today. The reason why we say they are not to be used is because of international conventions not to use them. So it's not really a moral decision, it's maintaining international law.
International laws are not inherently moral thus maintaining them is not inherently moral. This is a nit picky issue I have with your statement here(and it could spin off into an entirely different subject) but this isn't the time or the place for that argument. Just know that I consider those laws to be in place for more directly logical than moral reasons. What I feel the need to point out here is that you seem to have missed my point. My point was that just because you are ABLE to do something doesn't mean you should. The united states has the resources and could in secret start making chemical and biological weapons. We don't though for a variety of reasons. This is because just because something can be used and is very effective doesn't mean it's automatically ok to do. You could list every possible reason in existence why you shouldn't build and use chemical weapons but that's not going to detract from my statement that you can't just do something because you have the ability to.
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:
After conceding my point about how the government works (surprise, it's the most basic idea ever). You're now supposed to answer that last question. But you evade it and give an analogy.
That's probably because you don't give a question in that post and I was directly responding to a single post which Alex had quoted. Which is the following. I'm not sure what question i'm evading in the post I was responding to which was.
On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained.
By the way Ghanburighan thanks a lot for your opinion. I would really like to see what other have to say here.[/QUOTE]
On October 09 2013 17:25 Ghanburighan wrote:
This brings me to the general point, when dealing with laws, it doesn't make sense to talk about moral judgments beyond doing your duty. And the duty is in law. The congress is responsible for the budget and debt, in fact, it's the House more specifically. It's their duty to only pass budgets which they find reasonable. If they find the situation untenable, it is up to them to put a stop to it. And that's exactly what is happening now, just as it was happening in 2011, and countless times before in US history.
To argue why it's a wrong thing to do, morally, not to pass the budget, you will have to bring actual arguments (and not the "ACA is already law", etc). I won't put words into your mouth, but you did not actually argue your main point, i.e., why is it immoral for the Republicans to do their duty in Congress?
I agree with everything you said in this part regarding it is the houses duty to pass a budget that they find is acceptable. I disagree with your interpretation that the house is just denying a budget that they don't believe can be maintained. Furthermore I don't believe you actually believe this. If you did you wouldn't have tried to argue that the republicans are just playing a strong card that they have to get rid of ACA. You wouldn't have made those arguments if you thought this was actually about maintaining a manageable budget. Furthermore there hasn't been a government shutdown "countless times" there have been 17 government shutdowns. Now that might seem like a big number to you (implied by your choice of words.) but I don't think you think that's a large number. I think you picked those words because you feel that a government shut down isn't a big deal at all and that it's fair game. I disagree but i'll still answer your last question. Why is it immoral for the republicans to do their duty in congress? Because it is their duty. Understand that I know you're going to want to argue that to them it's their duty to block an budget that is not maintainable but as i've pointed out this seems to be a red herring.
To be perfectly frank you seem disingenuous to me. I could easily be wrong but that's my take on things.
|
The only logic I can see to US default being 'not a big deal' is that the world couldn't bear it.
As a world we can't/couldn't come to the conclusion that the US is not a safe investment. Whether the world likes it or not US debt is the backbone of the global economy.
As such we are all bound to it. It's not terribly unlike how investment rating agencies and financial institutions were caught in what was essentially fraud when they were rating/buying/selling assets in the US economy (and beyond).
What was the result? Most of the very same institutions went right back to doing what they were doing before with slightly more reserves (much of which is still debt) Source
The truth is if a majority of people understood how ridiculous the global economic situation really is it would collapse under it's own weight before we could blink.
I guess my point is just, that even if the US defaults and the proper reaction would be to degrade our credit rating it's a fate the world could not face (as we haven't faced that the one job the rating institutions are designed to do, they failed as epically as they could at. Yet we still use their ratings to asses the security of debts.)
I honestly can't imagine how the world could reasonably reorder itself around a global economy not centered on the US and it's debt without a world war.
|
If the US was close to default bond yields would be blown out of the water across the board.
And that is happening right now... are some small concerns about bond that are due in the next 2-4 weeks. And that is more along the lines of settlement risk and not default risk.
Moody's opinion :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82
Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.
” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
