Please, there is really no need for further discussion here. Switching subjects to avoid responsive answer is nothing but an old trick fools no one.
Many of your additional claims or assertions and questions can be clarified by you simply within your finger tips. It's really not that hard. You've proved it prior, haven't you?
Don't tell me you have not learned what the US Mint and BEP doing daily? Again just to show how much you don't have to say rather than let others felt sorry for you. All of us are better off since who are we to judge. Thank you.
slow_quick 發表評論於
回複藍山煙霞的評論:
Again, check your numbers. $13,615,674,949,267.91 debt as of Oct 8, 2010. Why do you say 外債,how do you know all of them are 外債.
I agree with you that U.S. government debt and budget are in bad shape but I do not agree with you that U.S. government mortgages its future tax revenue in return for loans from the Fed. I do not agree with you that U.S. government is paying high interest rate. I do not agree with you that the Fed holds 60% of U.S. government debt.
U.S. government does not mortgage the tax revenue to the Fed, nor does it take loan from the Fed. U.S. government directly auction its debt at market rates. At least for the time being, U.S. government's debt has very low interest rate. From the latest auctions (http://www.treasurydirect.gov): 2yr rate is about 0.441%, 5yr rate about 1.260%, 10yr rate about 2.670%, 30yr rate about 3.820%. The most recent market rates are even lower. How can you call these rates "high interest rate". Do you have a mortgage to pay? Or did you pay any mortgage before? What is/was your mortgage rate? Is it higher or lower? By how much?
According to the Fed's balance sheet (as of Oct 6, 2010, see http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm), it holds about $2.3 trillion various assets. Within the $2.3 trillion, about $819 billion are in U.S. Treasury securities and about $154 billion in agency securities (兩房債券, I count them because the U.S. Treasury basically owns them). Where did you get 60%? Or maybe you are saying that 60% of Fed's holdings are in U.S. debt (what is the big deal then)?
I would advise that you read more main stream knowledge instead of blindly believing and quoting some conspiracy theories. Learn some basic idea about accounting (like who pays whom, what is a balance sheet), learn the difference between treasury department and central bank, learn basic idea about banking and money, learn the difference between dividend and interest. The concepts are not that hard, you just need to be patient.
Thanks for the source. Now you know where went wrong, do you? Hope you read and learn for sure before drawing conclusion. It is very easy to misinterprete the content with "pre-exsting conditions". Aren't we all?
slow_quick 發表評論於
回複藍山煙霞的評論:
It says "The U.S. Government receives ...", not "pays". The 6% statutory dividend is paid to member banks by Federal Reserve System, not by the U.S. Government. Federal Reserve System paid U.S. Government $45 billion in 2009, not the other way around. Federal Reserve System makes money, and after paying dividend and keeping some, it gives all the profit to U.S. Treasury.
yuan222 評論於:2010-10-07 15:56:44 [回複評論]
Then why a lot of Chinese people want to pay $80000 to come to USA?
=================================================================================
現在美國生活水平高不代表十年以後還是如此。至少美國與十年前的中國差距大大減少
我有很多朋友同事跟本就不願意出國的,當然也有短視的
感覺中國在為下一代投資,而美國是在吃老本,克鄰頓時代攢下的老本已經吃的差不多了,在吃下一代了
現在靠借債維持奢華生活,問題是這種生活能持續多久?誰來還帳??
yuan222 發表評論於
Then why a lot of Chinese people want to pay $80000 to come to USA?
newcomer66 發表評論於
Although we suffered with recent century, but China had a proud old time, and It will have a great future too.
Actually, as a chinese, every one should be proud of it.
Inventions of China!!!
In today's encore excerpt - the Renaissance in Europe owed a tremendous debt to the inventions that Marco Polo (1254-1324), his father Niccolò and his uncle Maffeo brought back to Venice from their twenty-four years of travel in China:
"[Upon their return from China], the three Polos received respect from their fellow citizens, with Marco singled out for special attention. 'All the young men went every day continuously to visit and converse with Messer Marco,' Giambattista Ramusio claimed. 'who was most charming and gracious, and to ask of him matters concerning Cathay (China) and the Great Khan, and he responded with so much kindness that all felt themselves to be in a certain manner indebted to him.'
"It is easy to understand why Marco attracted notice. The significance of the inventions that he brought back from China, or which he later described in his Travels, cannot be overstated. At first, Europeans regarded these technological marvels with disbelief, but eventually they adopted them.
"Paper money, virtually unknown in the West until Marco's return, revolutionized finance and commerce throughout the West.
"Coal, another item that had caught Marco's attention in China, provided a new and relatively efficient source of heat to an energy-starved Europe.
"Eyeglasses (in the form of ground lenses), which some accounts say he brought back with him, became accepted as a remedy for failing eyesight. In addition, lenses gave rise to the telescope - which in turn revolutionized naval battles, since it allowed combatants to view ships at a great distance - and the microscope. Two hundred years later, Galileo used the telescope - based on the same technology - to revolutionize science and cosmology by supporting and disseminating the Copernican theory that Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun.
"Gunpowder, which the Chinese had employed for at least three centuries, revolutionized European warfare as armies exchanged their lances, swords, and crossbows for cannon, portable harquebuses, and pistols.
"Marco brought back gifts of a more personal nature as well. The golden paiza, or passport, given to him by Kublai Khan had seen him through years of travel, war, and hardship. Marco kept it still, and would to the end of his days. He also brought back a Mongol servant, whom he named Peter, a living reminder of the status he had once enjoyed in a far-off land.
"In all, it is difficult to imagine the Renaissance - or, for that matter, the modern world - without the benefit of Marco Polo's example of cultural transmission between East and West."
Author: Laurence Bergreen
Title: Marco Polo
Publisher: Knopf
Date: Copyright 2007 by Laurence Bergreen
Pages: 320-321
回複藍山煙霞的評論:
Where did you get the 6% rate? And how do you get the impression that the US government is borrowing from Federal Reserve? Please check your source and see if it is credible.
You may go to US Treasury's website and get first hand information to see what is the going interest rate there. Even the 30Yr Treasury Bond rate is below 4% (around 3.6-3.8% now). For short-term Treasury Bills, the rate is very close to zero.
Are you implying that the US tax is used by the government to pay Fed for its loan plus interestes? If so where is the credit source, please?
Also where do you cite the Fed discount rate is 6%? Since it is so easiely obtained openly that I'm for sure prime rate is 3.25% (my company's line of credit is too at 3.25%). While at the same time Fed discount rate is 0.75%, the Fed funds rate is 0.25%. (By basic logic how can Fed discount rate be at 6% while prime rate is only at 3.25%, what a bone head as government institution to loan at 6% while Fed funds rate is 0.25%). Where is the beef? (grossly misinformed data source)
And why 這個6%的貸款利息與實際的市場貸款利率是多少完全無關? (Your broker told you? --- meant in short term) "The prime rate, as reported by the Wall Street Journal's bank survey, is among the most widely used benchmark in setting home equity lines of credit and credit card rates. It is in turn based on the fed funds rate, which is set by the Federal Reserve". Just to show how much you don't have to say.
P.S. There were no tax raised by US governmnet for Afghan war, Iraq war as well. Both wars were and are funded & sustained on borrowed money from countries like China, Japan,... etc. Want to check out? Ask your congress representative.