westvirginia Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Kleiner Perkins, the well known Silicon Valley venture capital firm, just released a stunning analysis prepared by their new partner Mary Meeker, a very well-known financial analyst who worked for years at Morgan Stanley and was prescient about the impact of the Internet. Meeker spent about a year gathering publicly available data and refining an analysis of the dire debt and spending fiscal crisis facing the U.S. The result appears to be the definitive compendium of data documenting the incredibly precarious and dangerous situation facing the U.S. from generations of recklessness as welfare state policies and incentives triumphed. As USA Inc. we have a continuing and enormous negative cashflow and negative net worth...effectively "in the hole" by negative $45 TRILLION!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Gonna bump this because it ought to form the basis of an intelligent discussion here. There are some disingenuous points I have already noted in a brief review of the beginning: As USA Inc. we have a continuing and enormous negative cashflow and negative net worth...effectively "in the hole" by negative $45 TRILLION!! [Ed.: So much for the insistent liberal theme that we're not broke.] I could do without the political jab in a discussion of a document that is intended to be non-political but I would point out that "broke" usually means that assets are less than liabilities. In that sense, are we really broke? I don't think so. Debt doesn't mean broke. There are some other heavy disingenuous interpretations of the cost of the wars and defense in general too, especially the average defense cost versus GDP over a very long period slides 65/66). That average is heavily skewed by massive post-war spending on building the nuclear deterrent. Anyway, this nevertheless serves as a very interesting discussion document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 So what we've learned is the expansion of government under FDR hurt pretty bad. The expansion of government under LBJ has hurt us even worse, and if the trend continues and you have any common sense you realize the expansion of government under BO is going to kill us unless the SCOTUS over turns said expansion or people are elected that are willing to turn back the expansion. It really shouldn't surprise anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Gonna bump this because it ought to form the basis of an intelligent discussion here. There are some disingenuous points I have already noted in a brief review of the beginning: I could do without the political jab in a discussion of a document that is intended to be non-political but I would point out that "broke" usually means that assets are less than liabilities. In that sense, are we really broke? I don't think so. Debt doesn't mean broke. There are some other heavy disingenuous interpretations of the cost of the wars and defense in general too, especially the average defense cost versus GDP over a very long period slides 65/66). That average is heavily skewed by massive post-war spending on building the nuclear deterrent. Anyway, this nevertheless serves as a very interesting discussion document. The 45 trillion number exists solely for shock value because (as they mention much later in the presentation) they have no good way to accurately chart the real assets held by USA Inc. I'm sure there's all sorts of minor errors and whatnot based simply on not having accurate insider information to generate all the figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The 45 trillion number exists solely for shock value because (as they mention much later in the presentation) they have no good way to accurately chart the real assets held by USA Inc. Well, I'm thinking that the value of the land and buildings owned by the federal gov't, not to mention mineral rights and board-feet of timber, plus the assets the military owns, probably make a huge dent in the $45 trillion dollar hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well, I'm thinking that the value of the land and buildings owned by the federal gov't, not to mention mineral rights and board-feet of timber, plus the assets the military owns, probably make a huge dent in the $45 trillion dollar hole. You mean, "...probably eliminate it in its entirity with plenty left over to fully fund all of our existing entitlements. Of course, if that happened and we didn't reign in our spending, then our country would quite litterally be owned by our creditors." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You mean, "...probably eliminate it in its entirity with plenty left over to fully fund all of our existing entitlements. Of course, if that happened and we didn't reign in our spending, then our country would quite litterally be owned by our creditors." Total net inflow of foreign direct investment into the US from 00-07 was over $200 billion so they've already got a pretty sizable stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Why in the hell to you compare a govt to a business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Why in the hell to you compare a govt to a business? Because that's what conservatives do. If it can't be set up to make a profit, it's stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I've considered us a business for quite some time now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Why in the hell to you compare a govt to a business? Everyone looks for a metaphor or analogy to explain and understand complex concepts. Conservatives ------ USA.com Liberals ----- USA.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Everyone looks for a metaphor or analogy to explain and understand complex concepts. Conservatives ------ USA.com Liberals ----- USA.org That's quite a neat analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Edited March 18, 2011 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Everyone looks for a metaphor or analogy to explain and understand complex concepts. Conservatives ------ USA.com Liberals ----- USA.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Total net inflow of foreign direct investment into the US from 00-07 was over $200 billion so they've already got a pretty sizable stake. In 2000, foreign investment held 18.65% of our national debt, and in 2007 it had gone up to 25.07%. In 2008, foreign investment held 27.47% and itn 2010 it went up to 30.5%. Sure is going up quicker... Of note, the US holds the most amount of debt. China is the third largest holder of US debt sitting at around $900M (down from a high of $929M in '09), which is around 6% of our total debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.