YT2095 Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 yes that cap S is deliberate. every country has a National Debt it seems, so Who are we all endebted to? these often run into the Billions of <Insert local currency denomination>. we can`t ALL be in Debt can we:confused: and if we are, HOW? it just doesn`t seem possible unless I`m missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 National debt is just the debt of a government. It normally owes the money to both it own citizens (internal debt) and foreigners (external debt), and does it by selling things like bonds. So if you took the total wealth of the US as a whole, it would be much bigger than the US National Debt. It is the external debt which is the bad one because the interest you are paying is going abroad. Internal debt is fine because it is just a sort of inverse taxation (although it does favour the rich). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 isn`t there any self canceling involved though (on the external types)? I know in banks if Bank of YT has 10 cheques totaling 78 quid from the bank of Severian, and you hold 79 quids from my bank, then monthly we cancel out and leave the one quid until next month and see what happens, we never actualy Exchange any cash or cheques, we simply verify and destroy mutualy. the same could work between 3 or 4 parties or even more (and does). do Countries do this too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 They do. It's not as frequent, but it happens. Interestingly enough, they even report each other to "credit agencies", and have to deal with the consequences of default and "bad credit reports". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 Oh dear! so... Who might the baliffs be then? (at the risk of going OT for a a bit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I'm not an expert in this area, maybe someone else will chime in who knows more about it. I believe the standard "trio" of places where governments go when they run into trouble are the WTO (for complaints resulting from trade disputes), the World Court (for litigation), and the International Monetary Fund (for debt relief). All three are interesting organizations, and on my long list of things I wish I had time to learn more about. Beyond that, as far as I know, they log in to freecreditreportsforpresidents.com. (grin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 My history books /teachers said that the primary cause of UK national debt was buying arms and equipment fro America to fight two world wars. Before WW1 we were well in surplus. Lend Lease means what it says, not free. The prime causes of other countries debts are surely many and various. The whole modern world runs on debt now, ever since the introduction of paper money. I suspect there is only one dollar/pound, it just circulates so fast that everyone thinks they have it. It will be an interesting day when the roundabout stops. Long after I am dead and gone, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 How interesting, I've never heard that before! A quick check of the Wikipedia suggests that UK will finish repayment of the LLA debt on December 31st of this year. Fork it over, YT! YoU oWe mE dUd3! 8^D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I thought it was fairly widely accepted that the US motivation for WWII was mainly financial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I thought it was fairly widely accepted that the US motivation for WWII was mainly financial? One of the great business schemes of all time! Subtly manipulate world politics to favor the creation of an alliance of psychotic right-wing expansionist regimes, wait for them to attack us for a convenient excuse to enter the war, then rake in the dough! Now that's old-fashioned American ingenuity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 One of the great business schemes of all time! Subtly manipulate world politics to favor the creation of an alliance of psychotic right-wing expansionist regimes, wait for them to attack us for a convenient excuse to enter the war, then rake in the dough! Now that's old-fashioned American ingenuity! Don't forget the bribe that the UK gave the US to enter the war - the UK agreed to provide the US with access to former imperial markets after the war. So, for example, a lot of the UK oil companies moved out to the middle east to make way for US ones after the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 It was, after all, a capitalist war. No point in being a capitalist and not profiting from a war, goes without saying, really. Look at all the stories of how US companies profited from Iraq, and still do. First from armaments, then from rebuilding what the armaments destroyed. It is a mad, mad world. Never mind about crackpot science, it's crackpot politics wherein lies the real danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 So, for example, a lot of the UK oil companies moved out to the middle east to make way for US ones after the war. Which of course is why the Suez crisis was Egypt v Canada. Nasser haded the hosers and their lackadaisical ways. Which of course prompted Ike's condemnation of the Smallwood government and the invasion and annexation of Newfoundland, which became the 51st US state in 1961. (This is kinda fun!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Don't forget the bribe that the UK gave the US to enter the war - the UK agreed to provide the US with access to former imperial markets after the war. That is not true. The UK did not bribe the USA to enter the war. The USA entered the war because Japan attacked the USA and then Germany declared war on the USA. The USA did not have any choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 That is not true. The UK did not bribe the USA to enter the war. The USA entered the war because Japan attacked the USA and then Germany declared war on the USA. The USA did not have any choice in the matter. The US had no good reason for entering the European theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The US had no good reason for entering the European theatre. Except for the fact that Germany had declared war on the USA. That's a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Sev, if you want you can start a new thread for this, but it'd better be a well-constructed analysis; I don't want to see you hiding behind equivocal one-liners like the ones I see above. YT's question has been answered so I'm closing this thread (unless he didn't get everything he wanted, in which case he can re-open it if he wants). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts