ALEX JONES ON GREECE! What Really Happened... United Kingdom Next?

Kohoutek

michaels wrote: »

So Fannie & Freddie have no assets (enjoyed writing that in some juvenile way!)

Of course they do, but doesn't mean they won't keep losing money, which the US government guarantees. Lehmann Bros, GM, AIG had obviously had billions of dollars of assets and still went bankrupt. Fannie & Freddie are 75% of the US housing market. 25% of the US housing market is in negative equity, with no signs of improvement. Fannie Mae recently posted a $6.5 billion loss.

michaels wrote: »

And nor does the US govt either for that matter?

What do you suggest they sell? Their foreign currency reserves and gold are $128 billion, their 'official' national debt is about $14 trillion. What else is there to sell? Their nuclear stockpile? The White House?

michaels wrote: »

And all those unfunded promises will be met?

60 million Americans are dependent on government welfare for housing and food. What do you think would be result of cutting off aid to them, or abolishing government pensions?

michaels wrote: »

And the Chinese will stop using their savings to fund US consumption - how are they going to manage the unrest from 10s of millions unemployed in a totalitarian society?

The Chinese dollar reserves aren't getting larger, in fact they've been a small net seller since 2009. The current US yearly deficit ($1.4 trillion) is about the same size as all Chinese dollar reserves.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

And eventually the sun will burn out and Earth will be no more, oh and house prices will crash as well

We've still got 1 billion years for the sun, not sure about UK house prices!

Seriously, you're in the radical boat if you think the US can keep going for more than ten years.

Unless it radically reduces spending on social security, sending millions of Americans into destitution and radically reduces defence spending, abandoning its status as a military superpower, then it will soon be in a position where it can only fund deficits by printing money. I can't see that there will be the political will to make those cuts until past the point of no return.

If you're the largest economy in the world and run a 40% budget deficit and have $100 trillion in future obligations, then where does the money come from to pay for that? It can't just 'not pay' those obligations, it would deny pensions, housing, healthcare etc to tens of millions.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

We've still got 1 billion years for the sun, not sure about UK house prices!

Seriously, you're in the radical boat if you think the US can keep going for more than ten years.

.

I didn't think they spent more than the bare minimum on the poor and social security, note the problem Obama had with the medical fiasco. When you talk about defence do you mean attack spending, if it was just for defence I think they could trim the spending dramatically, having said that I am sure they think the army is paying for itself in the securing of resources, Iraq ?
BTW I think it is 5 billion years, phew.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

I didn't think they spent more than the bare minimum on the poor and social security, note the problem Obama had with the medical fiasco.

Not really, they've spent a lot on welfare since the programmes created by Lyndon Johnson in the '60s. Medicare and Medicaid are healthcare programmes for the poor and elderly, social security is the equivalent of the UK benefits system. Spending on these programmes is $1.4 trillion a year. Obama wants to increase health coverage to those that aren't eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

StevieJ wrote: »

When you talk about defence do you mean attack spending, if it was just for defence I think they could trim the spending dramatically, having said that I am sure they think the army is paying for itself in the securing of resources, Iraq ?

The wars in the Middle East were funded by separate spending bills. The Defence budget is about $500 billion a year, the war is about another $100 billion. There are huge vested interests in Congress that prevent reductions in military spending - the power of the 'military-industrial complex' that Eisenhower warned about in his last presidential speech.

Barack Obama kept George Bush's Sec of Defence, and chose a former lobbyist for a huge defence contractor (Raytheon) as his deputy secretary of defence.

kabayiri

purch wrote: »

In the Internet age the more outlandish and extreme your opinions, the louder you shout in your YouTube videos the more chance people will latch onto you and believe everything you say/write.

I don't think they shout. There is certainly a particular style to US commentators which is different to our calmer approach here.

There is merit to what they say though, in some areas.

It is a matter of public record when someone like Buffet increases their gold holdings for example.

Maybe the US wont implode, but it could be in a period of decline when viewed from afar.

Tell me, what is to stop the BRIC economies getting richer and the Western economies going through adjustment?

Pobby

308,818,000, or so I am told is the population of the USA. So if 60 million are depending on benefits that`s a lot of folk.