Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (159765)	1/7/2004 6:22:48 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 164684

Randy, I made no point about interest rate fluctuations. My post was intended to show you that holdings of treasuries make up a relatively minor portion of the US investment holdings of foreigners. I was responding to your note of wonder as to why such a wealthy nation as the US is a "debtor nation." Since it is not clear what you mean by "debtor nation", I guessed that you may have been referring to the supposed dependence of the US on foreigners to finance our budget deficits. One point I made was simply that foreigners hold a relatively small amount of our federal debt, especially compared to all the other forms of investment by foreigners. Another was simply that foreign capital coming into the US is good, not bad, even if much of it is invested in debt instead of equity. As for the sensitivity of our "debt burden" to interest rates, it makes no difference whether they are held by foreigners or not - the sensitivity to interest rates is the same. Higher rates means more expensive capital. All else equal, that would tend to discourage capital investments. As for a "total effective interest rate on our total debt", I'd think one could figure that out if by "total debt" you mean federal debt. The number is probably even be published somewhere, but I've never looked for it. If you mean to include private debt, it's probably an impossible task. Re your comment about keeping our capital here and bringing in more from outside to grow our economy rather than becoming a "creditor nation" holding a lot of foreign obligations, I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. Capital flows here because there are attractive investment opportunities. That capital creates jobs and wealth for Americans, not just interest income for the foreign investors. Finally, re federal spending, I think there are lots of voices calling for spending restraint right now. Some of it is just campaign rhetoric, of course, but some is sincere. More importantly, though, I don't think it is falling on deaf ears. Discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, has been rising faster than it should, IMO, but I'd add two points here. First, it rose faster than it should have all through the Clinton years as well, so anyone claiming a lack of spending restraint is something new is ignoring the facts. Second, most of the spending growth over Bush's first two budgets (2002 and 2003) was the result of 9/11 and the security concerns and "war on terrorism" that resulted from 9/11. But that was 2002 and 2003. Discretionary spending in the 2004 budget is slated to rise only 3.5%. For 2005, we'll see the president's budget ideas in a couple weeks, but OMB projections have it at only 3.2% growth. I don't think those are spendthrift kinds of numbers. Is there room to cut? Sure - that's where the fighting and name-calling really starts. Regards.

To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (159765)	1/7/2004 11:08:51 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Randy, the US "savings rate" is between 2 and 3 percent of income. Americans do not save enough to finance the borrowing needs of the US, so we rely on foreigners who are far more inclined to save money than to spend it. Japanese people (individuals, not the Japanese government) have roughly ten trillion dollars in savings -- not necessarily held in dollars, but to put a number on it. In Asia it is common to save from 20% to 25% of your income, compared to our 2% to 3%. They are savers and creditors, we are debtors and spenders. We have both large individual debt and large national debt. They have large savings accounts and tend to run large current account surpluses, although the latter is not always the case. At the margin, they finance our purchases and they supply a considerable amount of what we buy. This adds up over time, and when all debt is reckoned, we are now a debtor nation -- we are the 800 pound gorilla of debtor nations -- to the tune of trillions of dollars. This debt must be serviced via interest payments, and we borrow money to do that as well. The current account deficit, which is the broadest measure of our international trade accounts, is running at about negative $500 billion per year. That is the gap that we must fill to balance our books. To the extent that we fail, our dollar is worth less -- we can print more money but it does not have the same effect as finding creditors to cover the deficit. Simply printing more money dilutes the value of the money on international markets. In the last two years we have been failing badly and the dollar has plunged against the euro and declined against other currencies. Gold has been tracking this decline, with the shift in the value of the dollar accounting for almost all of the run-up in gold from 270/ounce to 430/ounce a couple of days ago. The concern is that the current account deficit is a potential time bomb whose time might be coming soon -- the current account deficit is so huge and chronic that it might cause our credit to dry up, leaving us with few if any good alternatives but to watch the dollar crumble, or sharply raise interest rates to defend the dollar. This may or may not happen as a catastrophic plunge in the dollar, but it is a very real concern. The direction of the dollar, long-term, is likely to be down. A lower currency translates into a lower standard of living, despite all the BS about how it is "good for the economy". It is good for the economy in the same way that a huge cut in everybody's compensation is "good for the economy". Bob says the current account deficit "finances itself". Nothing could be more ludicrous that to make this claim. They save, we borrow and spend -- we are indebted. There is no free lunch. Because our debt is to people who can easily decide to switch out of dollars, our entire finacial system is put at risk if the current account deficit becomes too large or persists for too long. As the dollar weakens, the decline becomes self-reinforcing -- who wants to lend money to people with low interest rates and a weak currency?