in the world
................................................................................................................................................................................................
A fact that is seldom mention is that the rest of the countries in the world owe the US $15.3 Trillion Dollars.
Subtract that from the $18.4 Trillion that we owe the rest of the world and that leaves us a NET foreign debt of $3 Trillion
The US has assets of at LEAST $269.6 Trillion, which is 1576% of GNP
The US national debt is $19.84 Trillion, which is 105% of GNP but only (19.84 / 269.6 = .07407 ) or 7.4% of our Assets
For purposes of comparison.
A home that cost $200,000 will have a mortgage of less than $1,000 (plus taxes and insurance)
1,000/200,000 = .005
Math is hard, check my math...but I don't see a problem.
BUT
If there is one..
The rest of the world owes the US $15.3 Trillion.
A solution occurs to me.
A solution occurs to me.
That says it.
We need to cut off all foreign aid to these countries that we give to and yet they still keep dumping their human trash on us to take care of.
I agree that we should stop all federal foreign aid.
If individuals or independent organizations want to provide aid to anyone.
more power to them.
just don't use tax dollars to do it.
This is great point that I’ve never thought about...
I wonder how much interest the government accrues on what other nations owe us. I would assume since we are owed more than we owe others and that most other nation’s credit ratings are lower than ours, that the collected interest more than services the interest on what we owe.
That being said, I hope that we hold our debtors accountable and don’t make it a practice of issuing interest free loans!
I dunno if there IS a credit rating on the International scale.
Perhaps it's up to each (creditor) nation to decide if the borrower nation is credit worthy?
Well, here is one thing about national debt, and it applies to the money we owe AND the money we are owed.
It is exceedingly rare for a situation to exist whereby the creditor can simply "call in" the loan.
Most debt has structured payments by installments. I don't know much about the debt that is owed to us, but I do know that in terms of the debt we owe, we have not been late on a payment or missed a payment, including interest. It is for this reason that America remains solvent despite a gross debt (that is, a national debt BEFORE the debt that is owed to us is subtracted from it) that exceeds our GDP. Think of it as a person who has a mortgage. If you have a mortgage, you owe a hell of a lot of money, right? So you're broke, right? Nope.
Well, in America's case, the value of the mortgage we are paying on has only just recently surpassed our GDP, which in this analogy could be considered "a year's pay."
This analogy works both ways. In terms of our debt, we're the one with a mortgage. In terms of debt owed to us, we're the bank. In both cases, as long as the payments are made on time then the bank cannot simply say "alright, pay up."
So in short, your solution doesn't 100% work, but that's okay because the problem it was intended to solve has been overblown anyway.
All that aside, this is useful information, and I've always wondered how much money is owed TO the U.S, instead of BY the U.S.
Thanks..
It comes to mind that the discussion doesn't consider wealth creation by new technologies or appreciation of real estate.
Where I live real estate prices have been increasing a LOT yearly.
So if we fall apart, does the rest of the world fall apart with us?
We have carried the World for half a century or more, so yes, if we go, everyone does.We should sell the notes, and pay down ours; then pass a balanced budget amendment, or they will do it again!
it's been said
"if the United States gets the sniffles...the rest of the world get's pneumonia"
so yeah...the answer would be yes.
Morte D'America, Morte D'Terra
"The death of America is the death of Earth."
Despite all the hype though, we're not nearly as in danger of "falling apart" as everyone thinks. America will eventually decline, as all major powers do, but the notion that a nation comprising nearly a third of the GDP of the planet (more than the next three largest economies combined), with more defense spending than the next ten combined and more naval tonnage than the world combined (to say nothing of more combined hours of combat experience among our servicemen than the rest of the planet combined), is simply going to be here-today-gone-tomorrow, is patently ludicrous.
Rome did not reach its peak (or really even begin climbing toward it) until after Hannibal's Army reached the Italian Peninsula itself. The British Empire didn't even approach the apex of their power until a century after losing the bulk of their North American colonies.
A decade of setbacks does not signal the decline of a superpower. Short of a doomsday war, a meteor the size of a 747 crashing into Kansas, or the Yellowstone Caldera blowing its top, America will be around for a while. And even after we decline from power (likely at least a century hence), the fall of an empire does not mean the destruction of the nation at its core, as any of the former Empires of Europe, as well as Turkey (the Ottomans), Iraq (Babylon) and Iran (Persia) can attest.
It is amazing how people can lie without really lying ...
It should be:
what lie?
the way the sentence was structured, it can "lie" or create the wrong impression for those who do not read it carefully. Some could also take it out of context.
China's net credit position is almost double that of Germany's and was included at the end as "apart from China" downplaying the huge difference between them.
Since the actual numbers, $1.2 T Germany and $2.2 T for China are not in the sentence, it is a lie in my book.
you have an interesting book.
Perhaps you should publish.
Here is "the book":
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America
by Michael Wheeler (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damn-Statistics-Manipulation-Opinion/dp/0393331490
In "my book" - means that I have read it and learned from people pulling the tricks in them.
In my first chemical engineering job, I had a highly paid consultant who attempted one of those tricks to manipulate and distort test results.
does that book include lawyers?
(a lawyer is someone who is highly trained...at lying in general...while telling the truth in specifics ).
or Actors?
If you have not read it, get one.
Chemical engineering research is all about how to understand and correlate data from research and sort out facts from fiction.
Engineers care about a 0.1% accuracy and 1% error could spell disaster.
Phrasing such as the one I quoted is a blatant lie as far as an engineer is concerned. But, for politicians or economist? hmmm ...
Just read the comments from the Federal Reserve and try to understand their cryptic messages.
How'd it work out last time we had an engineer for president?
I know who, but, engineers should not be a politician, IMHO.
Engineers are trained to be factual and precise. Engineers can not lie.
In reverse, you will not want a politician or economist to be the pilot of your flight.
"Close enough" will kill ya.