Since the U.S. is so broke now and can't even afford to sustain it's own people by providing basic services like heat to it's low income citizens during the coldest winter months. Venezuelan president Chavez has been selling heating oil to the U.S. for under market value.
This is a president that many on the ultra right wing want to assassinate, yet he is among the many international leaders that are now propping up the U.S. economy. Because we sure aren't doing it our selves.
Thousands of low-income people in Boston and New York will get help with heating oil this winter, thanks to a gesture from Venezuela's controversial president.
You see, right now these countries know that a strong U.S. economy means a strong economy for themselves. But that is becoming less and less true every day. The more in debt we become to countries like China the less important we become. Some day, in the not too distant future, those countries are going to want to cash in...
Does the war on terror seem all that important now when fighting it prevents us from providing basic services like Heat to our own citizens. People need to start waking up!
Thus, the logic of self-interest has compelled the world community, including China and other Asian countries, to prop up the American economy.
So next time you cash your pay check and buy that new Stereo remember, It's now the generosity of Communist Foreign leaders that allow you that luxury. Who really lost the cold war?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: RoverRoad,
Your link, a book review, provides some interesting insight. There is a lot more, but here are some snippets:
"The source of the problems is not that the US has lost its democratic innocence and plunged recklessly into the Iraq war, as bemoaned in recent books and articles by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former president Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. Neither is it that the US retained its capitalist predatory nature and engaged in war and exploitation of the rest of the globe, including polluting the environment - the point of the American left."
"Why is this happening? In the view of the author, it is mostly due to globalization."
"One would have to look closely at American society, its education, government and business to see that many of these segments have become ossified bureaucratic structures that work with exceptional inefficiency and are shielded from any control from market or government.
In many ways, the US has become similar to the USSR in the last decade of its existence, when the Soviet Union had only one first-class and efficient organization - its military force."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 01-12-06, 09:47 AM RoverRoad The globalization process is being speed up by careless corporations that are sending jobs overseas. How come you choose to focus on the globalization instead of the fact that it takes a foreign leader to keep the poorest Americans warm this winter.
Globalization will be a factor in coming years, but it seems to me that we're going about it all wrong. Ignoring such a large debit seems reckless. How can we stay competitive in a global market without neglecting our poorest citizens?
01-12-06, 11:26 AM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by RoverRoad: How come you choose to focus on the globalization instead of the fact that it takes a foreign leader to keep the poorest Americans warm this winter.
My fault for bringing your link into the discussion. I thought you might want people to read it.
01-12-06, 11:28 AM coldfuse And why on earth do you think that our international debt has nothing to do with globalization?
01-12-06, 12:02 PM RoverRoad When did I say our national debt has nothing to do with globalization, it has a role. What I said was that we are approaching it wrong by sending jobs overseas and neglecting the debt. Our current administration has made no effort to pay down the debt, instead focusing on bringing back Reagan era trickle down economics, which don't work. We now have a society where the rich are privileged and the poor are ignored. That's not entirely globalization. That's has a lot to do with Bush Economics, if you can call it Economics. Not everything in that article makes sense. Forgive me for bringing all sides to the table at once. The article wasn't intended to take word for word.
01-12-06, 12:54 PM frankvan Maybe it's just an "age" thing with me, but I can't help thinking that over 8 trillion in national debt concerns me. I wonder why it doesn't appear to concern all of us. Since my share as an individual is over $27,000, and I am already an octogenarian, I suppose I could shrug it off as my grandchildren's responsibility. But then I'm sure that the people who collect the 352 billion interest on that debt every year don't worry. They and their heirs far into the forseeable future are secure financially. And 40 percent of them are Asian fat cats. It's always nice to be a creditor rather than a debtor.
I suspect, also, that the corporate interests don't worry about the effects of globalization as much as I do. After all if the country is owned by the Japanese, or Chinese, rather than the present citizens, who cares? So long as we own the factories, and can benefit from the cheaper labor, why would we care how many Americans go without proper health care, are homeless, under- or unemployed, poorly educated, etc.? The "bottom line" is the most important consideration. Aren't these privileged classes the ones who pay for all the advertising millions spent to lull us to sleep? Ask your doctor if: (fill in the blanks) is just the thing for whatever ails you!. Who is it that puts up the millions it costs to elect a so-called "representative" of ours to the lowliest public office? To whom does your congressman owe allegiance?
01-13-06, 07:50 AM coldfuse Frank, I hope everyone is concerned about our national debt, and that actions on the part of future legislators to effectively manage budgets and reduce debt will speak louder than their words.
For the interim, the "silver lining" on the Asian tiger's investment in America is a reduction in interest rates. Their participation in the bond market has rates, by some estimates, approximately 2.5% lower than they might be otherwise. Further, jobs provided by Asian and European factories here have offset overseas losses. Do they know something our corporate leaders have forgotten?
Our house is not in order. It may be time to clean it.
01-13-06, 08:03 AM coldfuse ...and I don't think Venezuela is our answer! From the link:
"Venezuela continues to be highly dependent on the petroleum sector, accounting for roughly one-third of GDP, around 80% of export earnings, and over half of government operating revenues. A disastrous two-month national oil strike from December 2002 to February 2003, temporarily halted economic activity. The economy remained in depression in 2003, declining by 9.2% after an 8.9% fall in 2002. Despite continued domestic instability, output recovered strongly in 2004, aided by high oil prices. Both inflation and unemployment remain fundamental problems."
The bold is mine. How would Venezuela fare without the United States as a customer?
01-13-06, 12:19 PM DorianGreyed Fuse, if you mean that the US would be buying oil from someone else, it seems to me that the world-wide demand for oil wouldn't change, thus, Venezuela would simply sell its oil to someone else. Both India and China have an increasing demand for oil, with growth in that area possibly larger than the US growth.
01-13-06, 06:47 PM coldfuse Maybe - but why have they put their eggs in one basket with the US? How do you treat a customer who is over half of your business?
01-13-06, 06:52 PM frankvan Realistic producer in a seller's market sells to anyone who comes up with his asking price. IMHO.
01-16-06, 02:13 PM methos Frank - Where did you get the 40% statistic? I'd be interested to see a list or even summary of creditors if such a thing exists.
01-16-06, 03:01 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by methos: Frank - Where did you get the 40% statistic? I'd be interested to see a list or even summary of creditors if such a thing exists.
TO WHOM DO WE OWE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT? Some like to 'hope' we owe it all to ourselves. This chart shows otherwise.
How about a lot owed to foreign interests? Is $2 Trillion a lot? Of the $7.9 Trillion in total Federal government debt outstanding at the end of FY 2005, approximately $4.5 Trillion was owed to the public (foreign and domestic) in the form of treasury bonds and T-bills. Of that $4.5 trillion, nearly half, $2.1 Trillion, was owed to non-Americans.
Over half of all U.S. Treasury debt is now held by overseas owners. If that makes you uncomfortable, you are not alone. For most of recent history, foreigners holding US debt has been 20% or less. The shift began under Bill Clinton, starting around 1993, and accelerated into '94-95. When Clinton finished his 2nd term, foreign ownership of US Treasuries was about 35%. That ownership has continued to rise under President Bush, and now stands at 52%.
01-16-06, 05:33 PM methos Thanks. I've been curious to see something like that for a while.
01-16-06, 09:41 PM coldfuse Here is something official to back it up, methos.
Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government.
This is a .pdf file of approximately 2.6 Mb and requires Acrobat Reader.
The summary, through the end of FY 2004, is Table 16-6, found on page 258, or page 270 of 442 of the document. Percentage foreign is 43.9%, having grown from under 5% in 1965. I assume the higher figure in frank's article is more recent.
01-16-06, 10:20 PM DorianGreyed Does anyone know what the definition of "foreign" is for the purposes of the figures? Could some of the foreign owners be entities that are registered in a foreign country but in actuality are US companies located in more favorable tax and labor situations? That would really be a bite. Outsource to avoid paying American labor and taxes, buying some of the US debt, and, in some cases, charging the government outrageous prices for services, thus causing the US government to go into more debt, which then would be bought....
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 8061 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
DG, that is a great question. The document refers to "foreign residents" but that could be an entity of a U. S. Corporation established in another country. That is often required to conduct business overseas.
My guess is that most of the debt is held by central banks of foreign companies, but any research would be appreciated.
Posts: 8061 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Of the $2.102 trillion, $1.239 trillion is "foreign official" which I take to mean investment by governments. That would leave $863 billion or so ("a billion here, a billion there" ) in private hands abroad.
Posts: 8061 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
AnswerPool.com 
) in private hands abroad.
