$130,000,000,000,000

[rockfist]

I am a banker, albeit a Commercial Banker, which is NOT the same as a Wall Street Investment Banker...not even close. It doesn't make us laugh. I deal with cash flows, risk mitigation, and short term investments and I understand most accounting well.

Except, as intelligent as you no doubt are, you don't really understand risk OR impact. You only understand those you are forced to acknowledge. That is the big difference.

Any fisherman could have, without much education, given a halfway decent assessment of the risk this well might pose, just given the rough estimates of outflow. BUT, they were not consulted, their position was not truly considered because they are not really and truly part of the "risk assessments" made. When you get into even more tangential issues like losses of marshlands and species that were not identified when this plan was approved and that are perhaps not even identified yet (yep, they no doubt exists in the deeper Gulf regions), then it is a total fail.

So, to claim you "understand accounting" and "understand risk" is a very gross understatement. And that someone as involved in finance as you seem to be would think otherwise.. THAT is a big part of the real problem.

It worries me that I understand more than 99.9% of the people about finance and I haven't the slightest clue how we can possibly pay our "entitlements" and keep a functional society. What also worries me is that these are extremely complex budgetary issues and if enough village idiots team together to scream loudly enough at the government their chewing tobacco subsidies will remain, even if it tanks the whole solution.

I would agree with this, in principal. However, based on other conversations, I would say you discount some of the worst entitlements. The worst entitlements, the most costly overall are not those paid to individual taxpayers, they are the many discounts, tax breaks and mandates to consider "fair market" products (even when not are all truly created with equal impacts, even when some only seem cheap because of , well, "accounting tricks") given to large corporations.

Even beyond that, the very worst "entitlement" is this idea that any natural product, whether underground, in the ocean or only land, is basically just there for the taking, and has no value unless and until it is removed and sold.

Your post is more than a little condescending. I value species and wildlife more than you think. Its stupid people I could give a f*ck less about.

Let me ask you this. What do you think we should do about the Chinese and their appetite for Rhino Horns or Tiger Penis? I have some ideas but I would like to hear yours, because I bet they involve less bullying than mine do.

I am appalled that the companies involved in drilling the well, including but not limited to BP and Halliburton cut corners to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Hell even from a dollar value the cost of installing the failsafes on every fricking well drilled would not approach $20B. And think about this, every person who is spending any time cleaning up the spill, is taking time away from producing something of value in society (I am not saying that cleaning it up is of no value, but its a net neutral, not a net positive).

I am appalled that for all our government "regulation" involving oil wells there wasn't a governmental employee on the rig to say "no you can't cut these corners." If our regulators can't do that...why have them at all?

Our energy policies suck. But I do not believe cap and tax is the answer. I believe we need to build Yucca Mountain. I believe we need to find REAL sources of bio fuel...not the corn that Midwestern farmers and their representatives are promoting, which takes almost as much fuel to produce as it provides, and drives up food costs, and wastes top soil. I believe we need to find ways of using solar energy that produce a higher ratio of energy as compared to the energy cost of making the solar panels. DOING things LIKE THIS is REAL LEADERSHIP. Getting into a pissing contest with BP after the fact is political haymaking/damage reduction and is NOT LEADERSHIP.

The government regulators failed and big business failed. The administration is well on its way to failing if it does not use this opportunity to force through Yucca Mountain and work more on Bio and Solar. That's what I would do, because until we do that...its oil and coal and believe in global warming as a man made phenomenon or not they both have their issues.

[TeeGee]

well according to this source, the half the US debt is to itself

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/

So just who are these lenders? As of last June (the latest complete breakdown available), the biggest holder of Treasury debt was the U.S. government itself, with about 52 percent of the total $8.5 trillion in paper that's out there. Most of the government’s holdings are massive savings accounts for programs like Social Security and Medicare. Just as you may prefer to keep your Individual Retirement Account in the safe Treasury bonds, the folks who manage the Social Security Trust Fund are looking for a secure investment, too.

That’s leaves a little over $4 trillion in public hands. The biggest chunk (about 25 percent of the $8.5 trillion total) is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion).
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Other big holders of Treasury debt include state and local governments ($467 billion); individual investors, including brokers ($423 billion); public and private pension funds (319 billion); mutual funds ($243 billion); holders of US savings bonds ($206 billion); insurance companies ($166 billion) and banks and credit unions ($117 billion.)

maybe, this is an updated list from that above
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

[Phatscotty]

well according to this source, the half the US debt is to itself

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/

So just who are these lenders? As of last June (the latest complete breakdown available), the biggest holder of Treasury debt was the U.S. government itself, with about 52 percent of the total $8.5 trillion in paper that's out there. Most of the government’s holdings are massive savings accounts for programs like Social Security and Medicare. Just as you may prefer to keep your Individual Retirement Account in the safe Treasury bonds, the folks who manage the Social Security Trust Fund are looking for a secure investment, too.

That’s leaves a little over $4 trillion in public hands. The biggest chunk (about 25 percent of the $8.5 trillion total) is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion).
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Other big holders of Treasury debt include state and local governments ($467 billion); individual investors, including brokers ($423 billion); public and private pension funds (319 billion); mutual funds ($243 billion); holders of US savings bonds ($206 billion); insurance companies ($166 billion) and banks and credit unions ($117 billion.)

maybe, this is an updated list from that above
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Your details do not include the other 3 (at least) sets of books.

Fannie and Freddie have their own book. 6 trillion

[PLAYER57832]

Your post is more than a little condescending.

Sorry, I used to do Gulf fisheries research. So this is a tad personal for me.

I value species and wildlife more than you think. Its stupid people I could give a f*ck less about.

Let me ask you this. What do you think we should do about the Chinese and their appetite for Rhino Horns or Tiger Penis? I have some ideas but I would like to hear yours, because I bet they involve less bullying than mine do.

Probably not "less bullying". In truth, I don't see those as being the biggest real problems when it comes to wildlife. That is, taking a species that is already almost depleted is absolutely harmful, but often times it was not hunting that has most impacted the populations. (sometimes. it all depends) Usually loss of habitat is the biggest problem.

Ultimately, we have to place value on creatures that just "are there". That's pretty utopic, however. In real terms, we need to set up internationally respected reserves as "arks" or "biomuseums". To keep them, though, means avoiding war, extreme poverty in the regions, etc.

In many cases, farms are among the better answers. Cows and sheep are not at risk of being eradicated because people know they need them. If people depend on rhinos and cats, they are more likely to survive. Farms both provide an economic base and create that need relationship. If properly managed, farms can operate in conjunction with local wildlife, either be or contain "mini reserves". (for example a central CA dairy farmer might use settling ponds to deal with his waste, adding just a little area to the end pond can make a nice habitat for waterfowl).

A second part is education/research. Some of those "traditional medicines" really work, others are just baloney. Reproduce, create sustainable farm systems for those that work and educate people about the stuff that doesn't.

Ultimately, though, none of that matters if people are starving or at war. As much as I believe in all this, I am not sure I would just let any animal, endangered or not, walk by if my child was starving. People willing to kill each other usually don't care that much about mere wild animals. So, ultimately economic prosperity is security for all of us. That, and a perdium that says that all this is just plain valuable, because we need it.
(sorry, getting tired and therefore long-winded. I wrote,then went back to add... going to stop now).

I am appalled that the companies involved in drilling the well, including but not limited to BP and Halliburton cut corners to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Hell even from a dollar value the cost of installing the failsafes on every fricking well drilled would not approach $20B. And think about this, every person who is spending any time cleaning up the spill, is taking time away from producing something of value in society (I am not saying that cleaning it up is of no value, but its a net neutral, not a net positive).

And yet, I think they made those decisions, in part, because they did not in any way understand the impact an accident would cause. Its sort of like someone managing a soda fountain is thrust into a nuclear power plant, and just thinks its one big soda fountain. If you don't really and truly understand the potential damage, then you can easily convince yourself that "cutting a corner here" and "cutting a corner there" is OK.

I am not sure that BP really is much worse than the other companies (despite the many claims to the contrary now), just more unlucky.. today. I definitely find no cooincidence in Haliburton's involvement. Yet, all of that is mute.

My anger is mostly because I know that no one really will, or probably ever can, truly repay or correct the damage that has been done. This is not because the people involved are stupid, its because even though Gulf fish are among the most studied, best understood stocks on the plants, there is a whole lot no one really knows. In today's world anything not absolutely known is pretty irrelevant to business. I say that whole perdium needs to change, and very, very quickly.

I am appalled that for all our government "regulation" involving oil wells there wasn't a governmental employee on the rig to say "no you can't cut these corners." If our regulators can't do that...why have them at all?

to regulate, you have to have some basic understanding and acceptance.

In this case, I do believe MMS dropped the ball, but a lot of the criticism ignores why they did that. They did that because enough people high up in government truly believed that getting that oil out was just more important than any "stupid fish". Yet, that oil will only last for a set time. The fish, could have been there almost "forwever" (managed properly, that is, limiting catches, etc.)

Our energy policies suck. But I do not believe cap and tax is the answer. I believe we need to build Yucca Mountain. I believe we need to find REAL sources of bio fuel...not the corn that Midwestern farmers and their representatives are promoting, which takes almost as much fuel to produce as it provides, and drives up food costs, and wastes top soil. I believe we need to find ways of using solar energy that produce a higher ratio of energy as compared to the energy cost of making the solar panels. DOING things LIKE THIS is REAL LEADERSHIP. Getting into a pissing contest with BP after the fact is political haymaking/damage reduction and is NOT LEADERSHIP.

I agree here absolutely. And, I have been disappointed by Obama on that count.

The government regulators failed and big business failed. The administration is well on its way to failing if it does not use this opportunity to force through Yucca Mountain and work more on Bio and Solar. That's what I would do, because until we do that...its oil and coal and believe in global warming as a man made phenomenon or not they both have their issues.

I don't know that Yucca mountain is the answer or even wind or solar. I think we should pursue the possibility. Definitely wind and solar work on a small scale, but I am more cautious about large scale "farms". What I have read looks promising, but nothing is "free". I definitely think we need to look at using "true waste" and not corn for ethanol.

Overall, we need to go from a growth economy to a sustainable economy. This means utterly changing how most financial systems see and gain profit. That is why I say these more basic issues, not the interest rates, banking rules, etc are the fundamental problems. The banking, etc part is a symptom or result of the perdium that values things only once they are sold or used up in some way.

I wish every business major, every banker/ company executive had a better understanding of natural resources and natural systems and I wish more "ecoheads" had a clue about real business and economics. Its only with knowledge of it all that real solutions will come.

[rockfist]

I think Yucca Mountain needs to get done for two reasons:

1) We are going to have to use more nuclear energy (which I am not necessarily happy about, but I can recognize reality).
2) We should not have nuclear material scattered throughout our country. It gives terrorists too many potential targets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Players, I can relate to your anger over fisheries. I am a cat lover I love watching cats hunt, play, or do just about anything. Big Cats I find just mesmerizing. Love them. I give money to preserve their habitats and to the local zoos. I understand that as a human food source they aren't of any value, but everything is connected. If we kill off the big cats the herd animal populations will skyrocket until there are famines and mass deaths due to diseases. When the big cats are gone, they are gone forever. We can keep them alive in zoos, but this may come as a shock to you, I believe they will devolve over time if they are only in zoos. I get extremely hostile when I think about people purposefully killing animals and destroying their habitats and the Big C"pet cause" amongst them.

[PLAYER57832]

I think Yucca Mountain needs to get done for two reasons:

1) We are going to have to use more nuclear energy (which I am not necessarily happy about, but I can recognize reality).
2) We should not have nuclear material scattered throughout our country. It gives terrorists too many potential targets.

It is very complicated. I have been seeing these debates for over 30 years. However, one thing I do know. The greater the potential harm, the more we need to really sit down and think out our options. Nuclear danger is very large and very, very long lasting. If we cannot manage something as relatively "simple" ( relatively -- definitely not simple!) as a deep water drilling operation, how can we possibly think we can manage something that might wipe out hige stretches of our country forever? Note, I live "near" 3 mile island now. I lived near other nuclear power plants growing up in CA. I have toured them, etc, etc. I think utterly excluding nuclear is a bad idea, but I am not sure any of the "solutions" mentioned really are solutions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Players, I can relate to your anger over fisheries. I am a cat lover I love watching cats hunt, play, or do just about anything. Big Cats I find just mesmerizing. Love them. I give money to preserve their habitats and to the local zoos. I understand that as a human food source they aren't of any value, but everything is connected. If we kill off the big cats the herd animal populations will skyrocket until there are famines and mass deaths due to diseases. When the big cats are gone, they are gone forever. We can keep them alive in zoos, but this may come as a shock to you, I believe they will devolve over time if they are only in zoos. I get extremely hostile when I think about people purposefully killing animals and destroying their habitats and the Big C"pet cause" amongst them.

Add in that the Gulf is a huge economically important region, that this is a whole complex of species, rather than just a few.. and you begin to get closer to why I am so angry. Actually, though "anger" isn't really the truth. It is more "dispair", frustration and a sense of utter hopelessness. That said, none of those emotions are truly helpful. I push because I see a very narrow window. This thing is so big it might actually spur some people onto solutions.

Even so, I just heard an interview with a Louisiana official who declared that the region "can recover from soiled beaches and marshes, but not an oil moratorium". I also heard interviews with a couple of fishermen who agreed, having relatives in the oil industry. The lack of appreciation for our natural resources is a fundamental issue that won't be solved by a even a great disaster like this.

Its like we are holding up candy for a two year old and telling him "don't touch". At three or 4, some kids can restrain themselves. At age 2... almost none. The immediate money provided by oil is so great that the relatively small single payments from fisheries seem to pale. You have to stop and think about the fact that those fish dollars are permanent. Its much easier to just say "hey, we can have them both".. and to believe that is true.

This is exactly what has happened with our federal debt. Now, as a person versed in economics, I am sure you know the arguments for why having some debt is actually good for a country. (better than I, I would wager) Basically, that if you owe people money, they are more likely to want you to succeed. However, I think we have all lost site of the limits to that. And, the fact that that argument mostly just applies when the debt holders are within the country. I am worried about our large debt, but I am more worried about the fact that China holds so much of it. I worried about this back in high school when I first heard about the Soviet Union stockpiling US dollars. Paired with what I know of the collapse around the turn of the century, laws about gold hording, etc... well, if China were to dump all their debt at once, we would be sunk.

I saw the problems with mortgages much earlier than most news reports as well. This is definite NOT because I am somehow precient or any such thing. It is because I deal, day to day, with the realities of daily economics. I think too many folks on Walstreet, etc seem to have forgotten that fundamentally, all of their money has to trace back to people like myself and my husband. I have heard comparisons of money making to a "game". In a way, it is. Making huge amounts of money is a kind of game, a puzzle. But, unlike a game or puzzle, the impacts are very, very real.

Saying that economics is a puzzle is about like saying that warfare is a puzzle or a game. True, but still not reason to take either lightly. I am afraid too many people do. That is, I am not denying the pressure of Walstreet and such, but ironically, that is a symptom of what I mean. They are not under stress because they really see the results of their trading and manipulation on people such as myself and my husband, not really. They are under stress because they might not "win" "the game".

Anyway, I am going on and on and I digress. I fully acknowledge I am not an economist. I am definitely not a banker or trader, etc. However, sometimes I just think many of us on the ground know a bit more of what is really and truly happening than the folks who make the decisions about these things. I only wish more would stop and listen to us.

[Phatscotty]

Every single American can pay 100% tax, and it still won't be enough to balance the budget.

[InkL0sed]

I'm pretty sure that would easily balance the budget.

[rockfist]

Well if I paid 100% taxes I would pay nothing.

[Phatscotty]

I'm pretty sure that would easily balance the budget.

how sure are you? Care to look a little deeper? I challenge you on this issue, and you can bring your spord with you.

Don't make me call you out in a thread "Inklosed: prepare to meet your doom"

[InkL0sed]

I'm pretty sure that would easily balance the budget.

how sure are you? Care to look a little deeper? I challenge you on this issue, and you can bring your spord with you.

Don't make me call you out in a thread "Inklosed: prepare to meet your doom"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt:

The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.

Do you seriously think that all of the wealth of everybody in the country isn't larger than 2 trillion dollars?

EDIT: Actually, this is a better, more relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... commission
Total size of the 2010 budget: $3.6 trillion.

Still, this is like asking me "Are you SURE a house is bigger than a bookshelf?"

[Phatscotty]

I'm pretty sure that would easily balance the budget.

how sure are you? Care to look a little deeper? I challenge you on this issue, and you can bring your spord with you.

Don't make me call you out in a thread "Inklosed: prepare to meet your doom"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt:

The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.

Do you seriously think that all of the wealth of everybody in the country isn't larger than 2 trillion dollars?

EDIT: Actually, this is a better, more relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... commission
Total size of the 2010 budget: $3.6 trillion.

Still, this is like asking me "Are you SURE a house is bigger than a bookshelf?"

2 trillion dollars is....what???

The GDP of the country is about 12 trillion/year, give or take

The debt is 13 trillion.

It's pretty simple. You can tax 100% of 12 trillion, and, therefore having 12 trillion, not have enough to pay a debt of 13 trillion.

http://usdebtclock.org/

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm pretty sure that would easily balance the budget.

how sure are you? Care to look a little deeper? I challenge you on this issue, and you can bring your spord with you.

Don't make me call you out in a thread "Inklosed: prepare to meet your doom"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt:

The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.

Do you seriously think that all of the wealth of everybody in the country isn't larger than 2 trillion dollars?

EDIT: Actually, this is a better, more relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... commission
Total size of the 2010 budget: $3.6 trillion.

Still, this is like asking me "Are you SURE a house is bigger than a bookshelf?"

2 trillion dollars is....what???

The GDP of the country is about 12 trillion/year, give or take

The debt is 13 trillion.

It's pretty simple. You can tax 100% of 12 trillion, and, therefore having 12 trillion, not have enough to pay a debt of 13 trillion.

http://usdebtclock.org/

You said ballance the Budget not pay off the debt.

[Phatscotty]

You are right, I did say that. But but but, , it did immediately follow my statement about only counting 1 set of books, the smallest set of books, on the US govt's balance sheet. I did wrap the debt into there. That was my original intent. I misspoke slightly.

[InkL0sed]

Slightly? That's more than a slight mistake there.

In any case, we should reduce the debt and the deficit, but we don't need to get rid of all of it you know.

Related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0VhS8qXT0

[Phatscotty]

Slightly? That's more than a slight mistake there.

In any case, we should reduce the debt and the deficit, but we don't need to get rid of all of it you know.

Related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0VhS8qXT0

thats the 5th time Ive seen that link. I guess I am glad to see it is being circulated.

I'll meet you in the middle, we need to get rid of half. 50% SLASH

[rockfist]

Its a fucking stupid argument...if you had a 100% tax the GDP would approach zero.

[Phatscotty]

Its a fucking stupid argument...if you had a 100% tax the GDP would approach zero.

It was more of a point that "raising taxes" would not be enough, we need cuts.

[rockfist]

We need no raises of taxes only cuts. Cutting government spending is the best way to increase government revenue.

One thing that the new President should immediately do is reverse President Kennedy's executive order allowing public employees to be represented by unions. Then force through cuts in benefits and pay for all non military public sector employees.

[Baron Von PWN]

We need no raises of taxes only cuts. Cutting government spending is the best way to increase government revenue.

One thing that the new President should immediately do is reverse President Kennedy's executive order allowing public employees to be represented by unions. Then force through cuts in benefits and pay for all non military public sector employees.

Why only non-military?

[rockfist]

Because military salaries are not overly inflated, nor are the benefits, and the job they do is more important than a government clerk's job IMO.

[InkL0sed]

Because military salaries are not overly inflated, nor are the benefits, and the job they do is more important than a government clerk's job IMO.

The military as a whole is inflated. It is the largest non-government group of any kind in the entire world. Its budget is larger than the next 15-ish largest military budgets combined. And, as far as I know, this still doesn't include the cost of the Iraq war.

The military is certainly important, but not that important.

[Phatscotty]

If the US military is a non-government group, then, it would be interesting to see what happens if the gov't does not give the military the money it asks for....

[rockfist]

The other thing we should immediately do is set all congressional salaries at $1 per calendar year and eliminate congressional pensions so people do the jobs for the right reasons not to make money (see Roland Burris for an example of doing the job for the pay).

[Phatscotty]

The other thing we should immediately do is set all congressional salaries at $1 per calendar year and eliminate congressional pensions so people do the jobs for the right reasons not to make money (see Roland Burris for an example of doing the job for the pay).

ooh boy. Im just gonna disagree. I agree with your point, but I have always been of the opinion that we should raise salaries to to at least 250,000-500,000. It is my belief that more people would honestly aspire for a "pay raise", and also that the only people who could take that kind of $1 salary is a rich person, of which, IMO, we have quite enough of. And it's not so much about being rich either, but the mindset of someone who is used to having someone else take care of everything for them.