You are here

Deficits

California breaks into the top ten

Submitted by Roanman on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 06:07

 

According to CMAVision.com.

Joining Venezuela, Argentina, and Greece among other notable bastions of fiscal responsibility, California sprints into the top ten list of likely international deadbeats with a very impressive 20% probability of default.

Can Sam be far behind?

Not a chance!!!!!

Owning your own printing press is a good thing ... for everyone but savers.

 

 

To quote Allen W. Smith Ph.D.

Submitted by Roanman on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 15:12

 

Among the really good reasons to troll The Heritage Foundation site is that only really, really smart people troll The Heritage Foundation site.

The following quote shows up in the comments of a piece titled "Americans Have Every Reason to Doubt Social Security Solvency"

 

"The hard fact is that every dime of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, has been spent on wars and other government programs.

Every month, for the past 25 years, the total receipts from the payroll tax have been split two ways.

First, benefits for current retirees are paid from the Social Security revenue.

Then, all remaining Social Security revenue, not needed to pay that month’s benefits, are deposited into the general fund and become indistinguishable from other general fund revenue."

 

Can you say Ponzi Scheme?

 

If you're gonna borrow ..... do it now!!!

Submitted by Roanman on Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:44

 

From Barry Habib at Mortgage Success Source

 

“So the Fed stopped buying Mortgage Backed Securities, and people are wondering if this will affect mortgage rates.

There's been plenty of whistling past the graveyard, guesswork and denial, where so-called experts have been trying to tell us that there will be minimal - if any - change to rates. 

That pipe dream is just nonsense.

During the past fifteen months, the Fed purchased $1.25 Trillion in MBS, which represented 80% of the mortgage market.

Prior to this program, mortgage rates were above 6%.

Now that the Fed program has ended, it's reasonable to assume that mortgage rates will rise back towards those levels…

“Additionally - sovereign debt has come into question. 

Downgrades in the sovereign debt of both Greece and Portugal are a warning to the US that the same can happen here, which would drive the cost of borrowing much higher.

Our government currently spends $1.49 for each $1.00 it brings in. 

Our debt is now 57% of GDP...and rising.

Does anyone really believe that Treasury yields are headed lower?

As Treasury yields move higher from their current levels, mortgage backed security coupon yields will also need to move higher in order for investors to want to purchase them.

“When all the factors are considered - the chances of higher interest rates are a virtual lock.

And anyone in the market to borrow should consider acting sooner rather than later.

With such low rates still in our hands...and all these various factors pointing at the inevitable fact of rates moving higher.”  

Barry Habib, Mortgage Success Source

 

Ten Year Treasury Hits 4%

Submitted by Roanman on Tue, 04/06/2010 - 07:45

 

Four different services hit my mailbox last night with the same headline.

Ten Year Treasury Hits 4%

Putting aside the notion that a 4% yield over the next 10 years lent to anybody (let alone the Federal Government of the United States of America) even approaches a reasonable compensation for risk.

The much referenced "Head and Shoulder" Top is in.

My preference would be for it to go back up and close that gap between about 118.3 and 117.5 and then finish.

As a matter of fact, I believe it will, only because I have come to the conclusion that the notion of randomness in the world is a deception.

I have come to believe that the world is just about as anal and rhythmic as I am (which is pretty damn).

I also believe that the Fed will use every lever to hold rates down.

I'm just not sure it's gonna work.

 

Savers may not be gasping for income that much longer.

Oh yeah, and P.S.

Did you make that refi application yet?

 

The Guidotti-Greenspan Rule

Submitted by Roanman on Mon, 04/05/2010 - 10:09

 

The Guidotti-Greenspan Rule

Named for Pablo Guidotti, former deputy minister of finance for Argentina (that bastion of resposibility in national financing), and Alan Greenspan, increasingly discredited former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States (that other bastion of responsibility in national financing)

States that a countries financial reserves should equal short-term external debt (one-year or less maturity), implying a ratio of reserves-to-short term debt of 1.

The rationale here, is that countries should have enough reserves to resist a massive withdrawal of short term foreign capital.

The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currencies in reserve.

The U.S. has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (supposedly, ain't nobody counted it in generations).

It is the world's largest holder (supposedly, ..... ).

That's 16,267,000 pounds (at the risk of redundancy ....... ).

At about $1,100 per oz. or $17,600 per pound, it's worth just under $300 billion (you know ..... ).

The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels of oil.

At about $80 per barrel, that's roughly $58 billion.

And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves.

So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves.

Now, consider this .............

Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt.

That's not counting any additional deficit spending, maybe another $1.5 trillion ..... ish.

Add it up and you get $3.5 trillion ..... or so, a trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

That would be about 30% of our entire GDP.

Where do you think that money is gonna come from?

They're gonna print it.

Or snatch your IRA.

If not both.

 

The above was taken almost in it's entirety (with the exception of the bitter and/or sarcastic comments usually written with type just about this big) from a Porter Stansbury article that was all over the place most of this past fall.

It appears here, here, here  and there, but originated here  (somewhere).

 

 

Social Security? I believe I have isolated the problem

Submitted by Roanman on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:28

 

Ok, in the first chart below, we see the ratio of workers to beneficiaries go from 41.9 to 3.3.

Then, in the table further below, we see the tax rate move from 2% to 15.3%.

Hmmmmmmm .............

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Deficits