As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[POTUS] State of the Union 2010: You guys stand and applaud! You guys stay seated.

1252627282931»

Posts

  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Fox seems to have replaced gone back to its roots, but with a wonderfuly distracting picture of the white pimp guy that is very distracting. Also TERROR TERROR TERROR! It seems to be their fallback position whenever they fail.

    Also i got this when i googled health care.

    Barcardi on
  • SpectrumSpectrum Archer of Inferno Chaldea Rec RoomRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gosling wrote: »
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.

    There are only four countries that don't.

    Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.

    That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.
    Right. There are plenty of countries that owe money to the US.

    When you actually add all those debts together, the US is still in debt, but not by nearly as much. (And China still has a ridiculous surplus, but not quite as much.)

    Spectrum on
    XNnw6Gk.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gosling wrote: »
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.

    There are only four countries that don't.

    Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.

    That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.

    Yeah but there's a list of other small countries who don't pay of their debt because they have really no need to at all.

    It's a tiny list though.

    Julius on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gosling wrote: »
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.
    There are only four countries that don't.

    Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.

    That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.
    At about 2/3rds the size of the state of New Jersey, Brunei is larger than the rest of those countries put together. In addition, it is basically resting on a giant sea of oil.

    I don't even think there's a million people in all of them put together.

    Thanatos on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Macau isn't really a country anyway. Also, it's got half a million people.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.
    There are only four countries that don't.

    Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.

    That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.
    At about 2/3rds the size of the state of New Jersey, Brunei is larger than the rest of those countries put together. In addition, it is basically resting on a giant sea of oil.

    I don't even think there's a million people in all of them put together.

    I think that's kind of his point. Real countries (real because they're not supertaxhavens who rely on tourism and being really, really small) all have debt. Even super-rich countries like Norway, who sit on a pile of resources, have debt.

    Being in debt is not a huge deal. It's shit when you have lots of debt, but it's not like a normal debt really matters for a country.

    Julius on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    In any case I think those of us that are sensible realize the US needs to fix its debt, but worrying about it when the country is hemmoraging jobs and the states are mostly on the verge of bankruptcy is a really bad time to do it

    override367 on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Spectrum wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.

    There are only four countries that don't.

    Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.

    That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.
    Right. There are plenty of countries that owe money to the US.

    When you actually add all those debts together, the US is still in debt, but not by nearly as much. (And China still has a ridiculous surplus, but not quite as much.)

    Here's what happens when you add the debts together.

    The ten countries furthest in the black (in US dollars):
    China, 440.011 billion
    Germany, 235.257 billion
    Japan, 157.079 billion
    Saudi Arabia, 139.041 billion
    Russia, 102.331 billion
    Norway, 83.802 billion
    Kuwait, 70.594 billion
    Switzerland, 44.847 billion
    Sweden, 40.429 billion
    Libya, 39.217 billion

    The ten countries furthest in the red (in US dollars):
    United States, -673.266 billion
    Spain, -154.036 billion
    Italy, -73.200 billion
    Greece, -51.482 billion
    United Kingdom, -45.392 billion
    France, -45.327 billion
    Australia, -42.833 billion
    Turkey, 41.416 billion
    India, -33.330 billion
    Portugal, -29.437 billion

    And for reference, we were in the black in living memory. Like, 1991.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Woah, Russia is in the black?

    DarkCrawler on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Woah, Russia is in the black?

    It's an oil state.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Not just oil. Russia has a crap load of natural resources.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • SpectrumSpectrum Archer of Inferno Chaldea Rec RoomRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yeah, thanks for reposting those. We're still hilariously in debt, but it's at least no longer in the trillions.

    Spectrum on
    XNnw6Gk.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It's interesting to see a country with a standard of living like China's decide how to deal with a surplus. Sure, you could raise the standard of living, improve healthcare and services, but then if at some point you can't continue to do so, people will get pissed off.

    TL DR on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    They were mostly saving during the good times so they can spend a metric fuckton when bad things (TM) happened. Which they did. Their stimulus package as a percent of GDP was absolutely huge. And infrastructure focused, unlike ours.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    That's the way Keynesian is supposed to work. Ironic that the communists do our capitalist system better than we do.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • AtomikaAtomika Is this the end of Mousetrap Nipples? Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Not just oil. Russia has a crap load of natural resources.

    Not to mention a resources:consumer ratio about 1/4th that of America.


    Russia is fairly empty, compared to America. 22 people per sq. mi. compared to 81.

    Atomika on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Not just oil. Russia has a crap load of natural resources.

    Not to mention a resources:consumer ratio about 1/4th that of America.


    Russia is fairly empty, compared to America. 22 people per sq. mi. compared to 81.

    Siberia skews the hell out of that.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • AtomikaAtomika Is this the end of Mousetrap Nipples? Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Not just oil. Russia has a crap load of natural resources.

    Not to mention a resources:consumer ratio about 1/4th that of America.


    Russia is fairly empty, compared to America. 22 people per sq. mi. compared to 81.

    Siberia skews the hell out of that.

    Hey, resources are resources. I'm sure population densities are otherwise fairly analogous in non-hellscape regions.

    Atomika on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I believe one of the largest diamond mines in the world is in Siberia.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Not just oil. Russia has a crap load of natural resources.

    Not to mention a resources:consumer ratio about 1/4th that of America.


    Russia is fairly empty, compared to America. 22 people per sq. mi. compared to 81.

    Siberia skews the hell out of that.

    Hey, resources are resources. I'm sure population densities are otherwise fairly analogous in non-hellscape regions.

    Non-Siberian regions are slightly less dense than the US (Russia's population is much smaller than I thought: 141 million estimated). ~63.6/square mile.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    That's the way Keynesian is supposed to work. Ironic that the communists do our capitalist system better than we do.

    Capitalism requires strong government, to ensure that the caste structure of industry doesn't seep into the political world. We run into problems because everyone tries to maintain the illusion of freedom and rugged individualism, which serves to lay the mental framework for allowing large corporate entities to operate without any expectation of serving stakeholders as opposed to just stockholders.

    A father moves his family into an apartment because he's unable to pay his mortgage, and he should feel bad about not living up to his end of a contract. The bank takes the guy's house instead of mayne working with him, and it's just business.

    TL DR on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It gets worse when you start giving corporations freedoms, protecting those in the corporations from wrongdoing.

    Oh you blew up the global economy? Oh well, here's a generous severance package.

    In China I'm sure they'd also get a generous severance package and a nice retirement to an unmarked prison deep underground

    override367 on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    It gets worse when you start giving corporations freedoms, protecting those in the corporations from wrongdoing.

    Oh you blew up the global economy? Oh well, here's a generous severance package.

    In China I'm sure they'd also get a generous severance package and a nice retirement to an unmarked prison deep underground

    no, they just get executed

    china's really big on executing corrupt officials

    Rust on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    It gets worse when you start giving corporations freedoms, protecting those in the corporations from wrongdoing.

    Oh you blew up the global economy? Oh well, here's a generous severance package.

    In China I'm sure they'd also get a generous severance package and a nice retirement to an unmarked prison deep underground

    no, they just get executed

    china's really big on executing corrupt officials

    And with none of that drama queen bullshit like lethal injection or Electric chair. Just a 9 mill to the back of the head. Quick and deadly if done by a professional.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.

    Most people agree that we're getting really close to that threshold, though.

    Salvation122 on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.

    Most people agree that we're getting really close to that threshold, though.

    By doing things that will bring it back to sanity and keep it from spiraling out of control in the long term.

    MKR on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.

    Most people agree that we're getting really close to that threshold, though.

    Strangely, those people were nowhere to be found when we bought two wars, two tax cuts, and a drug plan on credit.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.

    Most people agree that we're getting really close to that threshold, though.

    Strangely, those people were nowhere to be found when we bought two wars, two tax cuts, and a drug plan on credit.

    Uh, yeah, they were.

    I'm not talking about, like, teapartylol. Actual economists thought that we were spending at an absolutely irresponsible rate under Bush the Lesser.

    (Edit: Medicare Part D was actually widely lambasted by a lot of Republican pundits as being unnecessary and expensive at the time.)

    Salvation122 on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.

    Most people agree that we're getting really close to that threshold, though.

    Strangely, those people were nowhere to be found when we bought two wars, two tax cuts, and a drug plan on credit.

    Uh, yeah, they were.

    I'm not talking about, like, teapartylol. Actual economists thought that we were spending at an absolutely irresponsible rate under Bush the Lesser.

    (Edit: Medicare Part D was actually widely lambasted by a lot of Republican pundits as being unnecessary and expensive at the time.)

    Salvation is correct here.

    It was economists and others talking about how Bush/Cheney were running us into such massive debt that started the whole "If you don't go along with the President, the terrorists will win!" rhetoric.

    Taramoor on
    nUzGRMY.gif
    twitch.tv/Taramoor
    @TaramoorPlays
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Suppose that the government was able to, through unheard-of competency, spend every dollar in such a way that its GDP multiplier was high enough for new tax revenue to completely offset the increase in interest on the national debt caused by the borrowing of that dollar. What would then be the risks of continued borrowing at a high rate? Would foreign governments be able to assert influence via the holding of this debt? If so, could you only borrow from domestic entities, and what kind of macroeconomic effects would that have?

    I'm not sure if anyone knows the answers to these questions, but I find them interesting.

    His Corkiness on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Suppose that the government was able to, through unheard-of competency, spend every dollar in such a way that its GDP multiplier was high enough for new tax revenue to completely offset the increase in interest on the national debt caused by the borrowing of that dollar. What would then be the risks of continued borrowing at a high rate? Would foreign governments be able to assert influence via the holding of this debt? If so, could you only borrow from domestic entities, and what kind of macroeconomic effects would that have?

    I'm not sure if anyone knows the answers to these questions, but I find them interesting.

    The vast majority of our debt is domestic. I doubt any single country holds enough of that 25% foreign debt to influence much.

    MKR on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Suppose that the government was able to, through unheard-of competency, spend every dollar in such a way that its GDP multiplier was high enough for new tax revenue to completely offset the increase in interest on the national debt caused by the borrowing of that dollar. What would then be the risks of continued borrowing at a high rate? Would foreign governments be able to assert influence via the holding of this debt? If so, could you only borrow from domestic entities, and what kind of macroeconomic effects would that have?

    I'm not sure if anyone knows the answers to these questions, but I find them interesting.

    Really, the question at that point is "why the fuck are you borrowing," since after the initial investment to get it kick-started you're in a positive feedback loop.

    Salvation122 on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The problem is that if we don't go in to deeper debt, then our economy risks collapse.

    There are better ways of doing things than what we are doing right now, but unfortunately they require a certain modicum of finesse that would be impossible to get through our overly partisan political system, because every single man and woman in congress is far more concerned with pushing their personal agenda and getting re-elected than they are about the health and strength of our nation's economy.

    So, for the time being, we have no choice but to accrue more debt.

    Evander on
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    The problem is that if we don't go in to deeper debt, then our economy risks collapse.

    There are better ways of doing things than what we are doing right now, but unfortunately they require a certain modicum of finesse that would be impossible to get through our overly partisan political system, because every single man and woman in congress is far more concerned with pushing their personal agenda and getting re-elected than they are about the health and strength of our nation's economy.

    So, for the time being, we have no choice but to accrue more debt.

    Yeah, maybe if we started actually saving some money during boom years then we would be able to cover deficit spending during bad years. Because the deficit spending is what keeps all the regular people from getting completely fucked by the economy.

    Unfortunately our plans during boom years recently have been "cut taxes!!!!!!"

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Yeah, maybe if we started actually saving some money during boom years then we would be able to cover deficit spending during bad years.

    What, and actually follow a USEFUL bible lesson?

    Evander on
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    The problem is that if we don't go in to deeper debt, then our economy risks collapse.

    There are better ways of doing things than what we are doing right now, but unfortunately they require a certain modicum of finesse that would be impossible to get through our overly partisan political system, because every single man and woman in congress is far more concerned with pushing their personal agenda and getting re-elected than they are about the health and strength of our nation's economy.

    So, for the time being, we have no choice but to accrue more debt.

    Yeah, maybe if we started actually saving some money during boom years then we would be able to cover deficit spending during bad years. Because the deficit spending is what keeps all the regular people from getting completely fucked by the economy.

    Unfortunately our plans during boom years recently have been "cut taxes!!!!!!"

    That's also generally been our plan during bust years.

    Or, alternatively, cut taxes and then start a war. And then blame the democrats for the deficit.

    Yougottawanna on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    It gets worse when you start giving corporations freedoms, protecting those in the corporations from wrongdoing.

    Oh you blew up the global economy? Oh well, here's a generous severance package.

    In China I'm sure they'd also get a generous severance package and a nice retirement to an unmarked prison deep underground

    no, they just get executed

    china's really big on executing

    Fixed.

    Seriously, China is big on capital punishment.

    In any case, capitalism doesn't require a government to be strong but smart. A strong government can push businesses away. A smart government will keep them in line, but still keep them around. China is having good growth because business is very cheap there. Financial services out of Hong Kong have very little oversight, while the manufacturing is done on the mainland where the people tend to have a pretty low standard of living. Shanghai, for example, makes LA smog at its worst look like a light fog.

    A smart capitalism government is more like the high tech manufacturing countries like South Korea.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Fixed.

    Seriously, China is big on capital punishment.

    I mean not Oklahoma or Texas big, but they like it well enough.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    It gets worse when you start giving corporations freedoms, protecting those in the corporations from wrongdoing.

    Oh you blew up the global economy? Oh well, here's a generous severance package.

    In China I'm sure they'd also get a generous severance package and a nice retirement to an unmarked prison deep underground

    no, they just get executed

    china's really big on executing

    Fixed.

    Seriously, China is big on capital punishment.

    In any case, capitalism doesn't require a government to be strong but smart. A strong government can push businesses away. A smart government will keep them in line, but still keep them around. China is having good growth because business is very cheap there. Financial services out of Hong Kong have very little oversight, while the manufacturing is done on the mainland where the people tend to have a pretty low standard of living. Shanghai, for example, makes LA smog at its worst look like a light fog.

    A smart capitalism government is more like the high tech manufacturing countries like South Korea.

    chinese officials have openly said that they want capitalism to run apeshit for as long as possible before the public wises up and starts clamoring for regulation

    they're probably concerned with becoming the new global hegemon over anything more long-term

    Rust on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    Fixed.

    Seriously, China is big on capital punishment.

    I mean not Oklahoma or Texas big, but they like it well enough.

    Huh? The US executed 52 people last year. China executes several thousand people every year. Even with comparing the populations, the Chinese like their executing.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Sign In or Register to comment.