United States Government Budget - Interesting Analysis.

Discussion in 'Economics' started by SouthAmerica, Feb 17, 2007.

  1. I don't want to confuse you any further than you already are.

    Today the United States has outstanding debts of over US 2 trillion dollars - money the United States borrowed over the years from other countries to keep its war machine going.

    In the late 1960's and early 1970's the United States spent a fortune fighting the war in Vietnam - the result was the inflation we had in the United States in the late 1970's and early 1980's - and that brought the prime rate up to 20 percent per year in the United States.

    When you piss away large amounts of money on wars eventually you have to pay the price - and the price is "INFLATION."

    At least I agree with you about one subject - in general Brazilian woman is very beautiful.

    #11     Feb 18, 2007
  2. That's funny, from your posts, you're the one that is beyond confused, more like delirious.
    Congrats on figuring out the QUOTE feature.

    Most US treasuries are bought DOMESTICALLY. Do you know what that means?
    Look it up, this information is publicly available. Even though the trend is changing, the majority of US debt is held in USA NOT in China or Japan.
    The oustanding debt is way beyond $2 trillion by the way.

    You have no idea of what you are talking about. War in Vietnam had nothing to do with US inflation pattern that started in 1970s. Funds for Vietnam went toward industrial/military complex and direct support of the troops.
    Defense spending did not stop or slow down after Vietnam, but thinking in that direction may be too much for you.
    Prime rate was brought up by the Fed chair at the time, forgot his name. He believed in that policy and was highly critisized for it. It did not stop inflation however, fed prime rate is an overpublicized measure for controlling money supply, when in fact, it has no major effect.

    You do not even know what inflation is or how it works. There is no direct relationship with WAR and INFLATION. The conditions of war just happen to exarcebate inflation, but there is a certain chain of events or a system that allows it to happen. And it does not always happen.
    Money is not pissed away, it is only transfered. Look up ticker symbol HAL.

    And freaky too.
    #12     Feb 18, 2007
  3. .

    Number22: Strong US dollar is backed with its stronger military; and in return more profits for its corpora citizen; which is beyond US long before 1970; Let's just say after WWII; the new world order is the US dollar.

    USSR died with its people lost confidence with its governments…


    February 18, 2007

    SouthAmerica: The US dollar became a reserve currency after WW II when the US established the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe.

    When all these US dollars went to Europe it did created the Euro-dollar market and eventually that market it did expand globally to the point were in the year 2000 about 60 percent of all foreign reserves sitting in the hands of central banks from around the world were in US dollars.

    The people lost confidence in the Soviet Union because that system was collapsing economically – and if you study the Soviet Union finances over the years you will find out that they were spending a large part of their resources in defense spending – and the Russians still have twice the number of nuclear weapons than the United States. But the Russians had to let go their ambitions of empire building.

    You don’t have to be too smart to realize that when you are placing your bet and a large portion of you resources in defense spending that money could have gone instead to more productive uses inside of your country – and create things that would be useful to many future generations to come.

    #13     Feb 18, 2007
  4. Pathus


    Nah. I like spending lots of money on defense. If it were up to me we would cut all the bullshit programs and increase defense spending.
    #14     Feb 18, 2007
  5. Actually, he effectively declared bankruptcy of US with that move. US simply could not handle the obligations of a gold backed currency anymore. Luckily USD is the reserve currency for oil. This is on top of USA being a major world superpower, heavily interwined with other major economies and of course, the might of US military.
    #15     Feb 18, 2007
  6. USSR was bankrupt prior to the arms race, so your theory is defunct. Only Stalin was able to run USSR at a profitable pace, at one hell of a human cost.
    Without high oil prices, USSR would have been done for decades prior. Its defense spending was due to the Cold War and Reagan's Star Wars programs.

    Truth is, defense spending advances technology across the board. That wonderful trick you do with communicating over the internet is due to USA's frivolous defense spending. The solar panels coming out of Russia nowdays are due to their defense spending. All that wonderful stuff being done with space exploration is due to defense spending.

    I am not advocating nor condemning the defense spending of either USSR or USA. I can just see that the relationships you are trying to push have little sense behind them. You see defense spending as a cause, while in reality, they were an effect.
    #16     Feb 18, 2007
  7. The way Nixon played out is perfect move to put the USD in every central banks.

    Let's just say, there is a little luck involved; but lot of planning; back stabbing and double dealing to secure oil reserve and fight against USSR.

    It is one of reason why China is fearful; the same plan didn't work with China. Go figure; China was way less industrialized than USSR prior its collapse; and was considered economically bankrupted by western standard long time ago.

    China has human rights issues; and Chinese are too smart.
    #17     Feb 18, 2007
  8. .

    February 19, 2007

    SouthAmerica: Here is another interesting piece of information that I just finish compiling it.

    President Bill Clinton administration (Jan’93 – Jan’01)

    Actual figures total annual defense budget during the Clinton administration.

    Year - Amount in billions of US dollars

    1993 - US$ 267.4
    Total cumulative actual amount for period Jan’93 – Jan’01 = US$ 1,773.1 billion.

    On the 2000 Defense Department Annual Report – The Defense Dept. projected the following amounts for Defense spending for the 7-years period from 2001 to 2007.

    Year - Amount in billions of US dollars

    2001 - US$ 272
    Total cumulative amount for 7-year period Jan’01 – Jan’07 = US$ 2,045 billion.


    Here is Bushes’ military spending - this does not include ANY costs related to Afghanistan or Iraq as they are all in supplemental spending bills:

    For Fiscal Year 2007 it is $470.0 billion
    For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
    For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
    For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion
    For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
    For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
    For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $ 296.0 billion

    Iraq and Afghanistan supplementary spending including 2007 = over $ 500 billion.


    Total Bush administration actual defense spending for 7-year period 2001 to 2007 = US$ 3,266.7 billion

    For Fiscal year 2008 we can very conservatively estimate that Defense spending will be at least another US$ 500 billion.

    Including this estimate for defense spending for 2008 that would bring the total defense spending for the 8-year period of the Bush administration to the amount of US$ 3,766.7 billion.


    1) The last defense budget for the Clinton administration in 2000 projected that defense spending for the next 7 years would be add to a total amount of US$ 2,045 billion.

    The defense spending for the Bush administration for that same 7-year period has come to the actual amount of US$ 3,267 billion.

    The Bush administration actual defense expenditures are US$ 1,222 billion more than the amount projected by the Clinton administration.

    2) The Clinton administration actual defense expenditures for the 8-year period the total cumulative amount was US$ 1,773 billion

    When we compare that amount with the total cumulative defense expenditure for the 8-year period of the Bush administration in the amount of US$ 3,767 billion – then we can see that the Bush administration would have spent more than double of the amount that the Clinton administration spent in defense spending – to the tune of an extra US$ 2 trillion.

    I guess today we don’t have anyone in the US mainstream media paying any attention to this kind of information, but the information it is readily available right now on the US Defense Department website. – and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to find all these actual numbers to be able to make some of these quick comparisons.

    #18     Feb 19, 2007
  9. Wow, those are some serious delusions there. I think you need to look at the full history of the Bretton Woods system.

    There is no trickery or luck or planning, USA simply could not fulfill its obligations anymore and had to go on a fiat currency basis under some made up pretenses. European nations were redeeming dollars for gold at an alarming rate. Why do you think the government has not been able to release any figures about Fort Knox or let anyone get access to it for several decades?
    Only the use of the USD for oil retained the reserve currency power, up to a point. Is there a coincidence that at the same time, defense spending took a serious focus? Or that involvement of USA covert operations across the world started heating up? Gotta protect that imperialist position.
    The truth is that USA's best days went away with going to fiat currency. Money supply growth undertook a new era of growth. Real wage growth started dropping. Cost of living started growing. Inflation became a common term entrenched and banged into the head of the masses. The Reagan administration did do some clever wonders with evolving the financial industry and creating a ton of white collar jobs. Ever since then, the financial industry has been booming, with occasional hiccups.

    Similiar events followed U.K. and its attempt to force the pound to be valued higher than it really was on a gold basis. They tried, they sure did, but eventually that illusion was shattered as well. Guys like Soros made their fortune on those events, properly foreseeing that the British government could not force that illusion on the rest of the world.

    A look into the Chinese finances will show you another picture. It's not exactly a great position to be the world's sweatshop that can and will be replaced at any moment. Fact is, China wants out of that business, because it is not too profitable. Being the world's center for exploited labor is not too smart. You may see a ton of "Made in China" but do you see many Chinese trademarks? I only know of one, Suntech, and for some weird reason their pricing is not competitive and their market share is stagnant or dropping.
    Those sweatshops run on razor thin margins. The real profits go right into the pockets of the big corporations. China's GDP is still somewhat dependent on foreign investment. China's bank loans are in bad shape, even the Bank of China continually warns of this fact. About half of them are pretty much defunct. Many domestic non-sweatshop businesses in China are not profitable and have little hope. But the government will keep pressing, they want high employment and want industrialization. Hence the many upon many human rights abuses and one of the most supressed & controlled medias of the world.
    China is a slave to the US & European multinational corporations and their consumers. If you research China's trade politics, you will notice that they are having problems transitioning. They want to start making higher end technology and selling it to their major nation neighbors. But that's what Russia and Japan are already trying to sell to China. It's a weird situation. Look up the politics behind Russia providing a pipeline to China, the two have been playing games for a long time because they can't come to a trade agreement.
    Everytime the USD sinks lower, China has to look at their massive stockpile of US Treasuries and sees them go further in the red. But what are they to do? Hmmm. Well they have been buying up military equipment from Russia and other nations for almost 10 years. Sound familiar?

    It's a very intricate game of paper pushing & geopolitics where little is as it seems.
    #19     Feb 19, 2007
  10. .

    February 19, 2007

    SouthAmerica: Reply to Hydroblunt

    In the mid 1970’s when I was in college I did read a very interesting book that gave me a detailed analysis of the roots of the economic mess that the US found itself in the 1970’s – the name of the book was “Inflation” by Michael Harrington. He also wrote a number of other books, but the book that made him famous was “The Other American.”

    I was an undergraduate economics student at that time and Michael Harrington’s book made a lot of sense to me. The root of the problem of the inflation of the 1970’s was in the massive US defense spending going back to the mid 1960’s because of the Vietnam War.

    Massive defense spending generates inflation in future years.


    Number22: It is one of reason why China is fearful; the same plan didn't work with China. Go figure; China was way less industrialized than USSR prior its collapse; and was considered economically bankrupted by western standard long time ago.

    China has human rights issues; and Chinese are too smart.


    SouthAmerica: Reply to number22

    I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say on the above posting.

    But my next article that should be published by March 1, 2007 about China it will clarify a few things for you. You will understand the differences and what is behind China’s rise to be another superpower.

    #20     Feb 19, 2007