Current financial state of the USA and it's impact on the gaming industry

Recommended Videos

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
sushkis2 said:
Just let's not blame this on anybody, shall we?
So... we can't "blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol", then? (American LOL)

OT: Honestly, besides certain "increased" decline in employment, any sort of big problems that weren't already happening before the shutdown in terms of the game industry would seem more like something that was bound to happen anyway, regardless... I don't think it would actually start to make a greater impact until maybe next year or so, if the government is still shutdown by then... It's too close to call for me, but I'm sure the other divisions would still be keeping up the pace for another 2 years or more... Besides, "we have nothing to fear... but spiders..." (I feel indifferent to spiders, anyway...)
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Heh. Less game development is the last thing you should worry about, when you're concearned about the overal economy.

Firstly, because of priorities, you know.

Secondly, because games offer compelling escapism for cheap and as such should be more recession proof than most non-essential products. Also consider how gaming has always survived and thrived under rampant piracy figures since the ancient homecomputer. Sure a couple publishers may die and many game studios may close and the game industry as a whole will still be fine, if not healthier for it.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
MysticSlayer said:
Ultimately, it depends on how game companies can handle tougher economic times, and that's based on whether or not people want to spend during those times. Keep in mind, we've been doing better on unemployment over the last few years [http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000],[footnote]Do bear in mind that unemployment is somewhat hard to track in the U.S. There are certain conditions one has to meet to be considered "unemployed", and those conditions don't cover everyone who is actually unemployed. For all we know. In other words, unemployment is much higher than in that link, but again, we can't track it, so we can't really factor that in, nor do we really know if it has been seriously increasing as the official unemployment rate drops. even if we're still not doing good on it.
A note on unemployment. It doesn't count people who no longer get unemployment or are seeking work. Its skewed to look better number-wise but in reality its higher than what "polls" say it is.
That's actually what I was trying to cover in the footnote with the "certain conditions". I haven't really been keeping up with economist predictions, but I do know that when the unemployment rate was officially around 8% that some economists were predicting the actual unemployment rate was approximately 20%. It is rather deceptive that they do little, if anything, to inform people of that disparity between the official and actual unemployment rates, but, on the other hand, I know one economics professor I had brought up the difficulty in tracking the actual unemployment rate, and that the official was the best they could definitively provide us with. Still, it would help if the prediction by economists of the actual rate were made more available to the general public, not something that has to be dug up by FOX News during one of their rants on the government.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
spartan231490 said:
It's not nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be. The government has shut down the same way for months at a time during both Bush's and Clinton's administrations.
You're right about how it happened during Clinton and Bush's administrations... but neither of those shutdowns were pretty much right after the US economy had just imploded. The US is doing a lot better the it has been economically in the last few years and now the government is playing chicken with October 17, while all the "non-essential" government workers get to enjoy all the benefits of unexpected, indefinite leave without pay. It's pretty much as bad as people are making out and you may want to look at the big picture before you say "meh, been there, seen that, bored now"
 

crazyarms33

New member
Nov 24, 2011
381
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Bull. This is the second time in the last year or two that the republicans have threatened to do this. If the dems caved every time they did it, nothing but what that small minority of tea party republicans wanted would ever get done. In fact, that's a big part of why the first half of Obama's first term was so weak: he was dead set on compromising with the republicans, who took it as an excuse to bully him into doing whatever they wanted. To put it another way, "we don't negotiate with terrorists." These people have proven time and time again that the definition of "compromise" in their vocabulary is "a word that the other party uses to signify weakness. An easy way of exploiting them." They won't take anything but a total concession, so attempting to compromise is pointless, because they're not interesting in an actual compromise, where both sides get something they want. The far right side of the republican party, and especially the tea partiers, are only interested in getting exactly what they want and not giving an inch to the other side.

Edit: also, major citation needed on that editorial. Obamacare is about regulating the insurance industry. It's not this nightmare that the pundits paint it as.
Aaaaannnnnndddddd you just compared Republicans to terrorists. I will not debate this with you, not because you're unintelligent(clearly you are) but because of your incredible bias. No offense, but that is both uncalled for and completely over the line. If you can't refrain from such inflammatory statements then I don't believe you are capable of impartial and objective debate. I will say only 3 more things:
1.)The article from the WSJ(hardly a conservative paper) anticipates at 17% drop in available finances for working American families based on this one program alone and it will not be some short lived issue but the new standard tax rate for us.
2.) The Dems. refused to compromise on the issues that the Reps had with it which is the same thing as not compromising. A good compromise leaves everyone pissed off. Are the Reps being childish? Of course they are. Are the Dems being mature adults? No, they're being equally childish. Is it fair to blame one side? Not in my opinion, and not based what factual evidence I have read.
3.) O's presidency has been defined by both parties refusing to compromise. This is the largest issue because it has the most potential to decimate the American economy beyond any and all repair. Many economists agree on this point and not for the first time, Congress is ignoring the experts.
 

johntheescapist

New member
Apr 27, 2013
12
0
0
If the United States Congress does not increase America's debt limit then the government will default on said debt and/or only pay SOME obligations and the world economy will collapse, probably worse than what happened in 2007 considering the already high unemployment and lower standard of living, along with slowing economic growth in developing nations like China and Brazil.

If the global economy does not collapse this month then go read these articles on the economist about the future of video games.

http://www.economist.com/topics/video-games
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
sushkis2 said:
What's your take on the situation?
My take is that, even if it does affect the gaming industry in any way, that should be the least of everyone's concerns.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
briankoontz said:
It doesn't matter how big the American government's debt gets, since the world can't afford it to default. An American default would decimate the global economy, and wouldn't be tolerated by pretty much anyone - right-wing American politicians raise the issue as part of a long-term project of corporate domination of the economy.

The "current financial state of the US" has been gradually worsening since the 1970s, due to poor economic policy and terrible economic priorities, such as yearly $1 Trillion military expenditures while schools are being closed, roads are in disrepair, and the health care system (regardless of Obama's law) is far worse than that of most other industrialized countries.

Remember the Greek government debt crisis a few years ago? Even though the Greek economy is a fraction of the American one, there was no way Europe was going to let Greece default, since it would harm Europe as a whole. The Eurozone and the International Monetary Fund used the threat of Greek default to take control of the Greek economy, so $67.5 Billion of Greek Government assets were corporatized, among other elements of domination. Go ahead and ask the Greek people how their lives have been since these "helpful changes" were implemented there. Then ask the multinational corporations how helpful these changes have truly been.

That's the model that's desired for the United States, among other debtor nations - sell off public assets to corporations, take what little control regular people have over their economy away from them and put it into the hands of international banks and multinational corporations. Disempowering people further means their wages and benefits are (further) reduced and powerful institutions further enriched and empowered.

The world is dying, ecologically, at least according to the understanding of those in power (which will come to pass if they have their way). There are no long-term consumers of capitalist products and services. This understanding has transformed the capitalist human into the capitalist dragon, from an investor into a hoarder, from a man into a beast.

In a dying world the entire earth eventually becomes a ghetto, and the ruling idea of the rich is to escape the ghetto. The first step is a siege mentality, where gated communities are built, walls to keep out the unworthy, while wealth and power are amassed and capabilities improved. By the time the ghetto expands to include even them, they'll be gone, through a combination of nano-tech, computer-tech, and outer-space tech. In a dead world filled with zombies, these last bastions of humanity will take to outer space to "repopulate the human race", neglecting to understand that unlike the "zombies", these "human beings" were the precise creatures to have murdered an entire planet in the first place.

But they'll be super-beautiful, 6-packed, breast-augmented, buffed with their own sense of self-worth, super-knowledgeable, super-intelligent, super-capable, all teched up and ready to go. They'll be Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, so photogenic and Hollywood and super-awesome. So fuck history, fuck reality, they've transcended all of that. They are going to colonize the final frontier and no earth or zombies or human beings are going to stop them. They are the real human beings and there's no one they've left alive to tell them they're wrong.
That's the plot of elysium, dude. Though you executed this whole collision of paragraphs brilliantly.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
sushkis2 said:
So, I've just heard that the US have got themselves in a sticky situation, on the account of borrowing too much money from the chinese. Since a major part of the general gaming industry is revolving around the US, I think there may be some negative effects on the business in question. What's your take on the situation?

I myself am from Europe and Have just found out about this whole circus and the full extent of the situation. Enlighten me. Enlighten each other. Just let's not blame this on anybody, shall we?
Actually, the opposite. Games are expensive, but they typically give you much more for your money, so their actually a better value. A movie may cost between $10-$20 for a two hour story. A game like Skyrim, if bought new, delivers well over a hundred hours for $60. Therefore a movie may cost $10 per hour of fun, but the game may deliver an hour of fun for less than a dollar. That's without counting gamestop, which delivers tons of games for lower prices, or Steam, which offers massive sales. As a result the recession has, in some ways, helped the industry, atleast in my research. It's technically cheaper to get a game because it offers more bang for your buck. If a company is hurting financially, keep in mind it's not because they aren't selling tons of copies, it's because they spend too much money, especially on advertising.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
Racecarlock said:
briankoontz said:
But they'll be super-beautiful, 6-packed, breast-augmented, buffed with their own sense of self-worth, super-knowledgeable, super-intelligent, super-capable, all teched up and ready to go. They'll be Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, so photogenic and Hollywood and super-awesome. So fuck history, fuck reality, they've transcended all of that. They are going to colonize the final frontier and no earth or zombies or human beings are going to stop them. They are the real human beings and there's no one they've left alive to tell them they're wrong.
That's the plot of elysium, dude. Though you executed this whole collision of paragraphs brilliantly.
That's coincidental if true - I haven't seen the movie.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
briankoontz said:
Racecarlock said:
briankoontz said:
But they'll be super-beautiful, 6-packed, breast-augmented, buffed with their own sense of self-worth, super-knowledgeable, super-intelligent, super-capable, all teched up and ready to go. They'll be Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, so photogenic and Hollywood and super-awesome. So fuck history, fuck reality, they've transcended all of that. They are going to colonize the final frontier and no earth or zombies or human beings are going to stop them. They are the real human beings and there's no one they've left alive to tell them they're wrong.
That's the plot of elysium, dude. Though you executed this whole collision of paragraphs brilliantly.
That's coincidental if true - I haven't seen the movie.
Seriously? Aside from the zombies part, elysium is pretty much exactly how you described. A bunch of rich Mitt Romney type people have moved to a space station and are trying to keep undocumented (read, latino and black leaning people and poor people) people out. And of course, all the undocumented people are left on earth to do menial labor and build security robots.

You should check that movie out sometime, I think you'd really like it.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
crazyarms33 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Bull. This is the second time in the last year or two that the republicans have threatened to do this. If the dems caved every time they did it, nothing but what that small minority of tea party republicans wanted would ever get done. In fact, that's a big part of why the first half of Obama's first term was so weak: he was dead set on compromising with the republicans, who took it as an excuse to bully him into doing whatever they wanted. To put it another way, "we don't negotiate with terrorists." These people have proven time and time again that the definition of "compromise" in their vocabulary is "a word that the other party uses to signify weakness. An easy way of exploiting them." They won't take anything but a total concession, so attempting to compromise is pointless, because they're not interesting in an actual compromise, where both sides get something they want. The far right side of the republican party, and especially the tea partiers, are only interested in getting exactly what they want and not giving an inch to the other side.

Edit: also, major citation needed on that editorial. Obamacare is about regulating the insurance industry. It's not this nightmare that the pundits paint it as.
Aaaaannnnnndddddd you just compared Republicans to terrorists. I will not debate this with you, not because you're unintelligent(clearly you are) but because of your incredible bias. No offense, but that is both uncalled for and completely over the line. If you can't refrain from such inflammatory statements then I don't believe you are capable of impartial and objective debate. I will say only 3 more things:
1.)The article from the WSJ(hardly a conservative paper) anticipates at 17% drop in available finances for working American families based on this one program alone and it will not be some short lived issue but the new standard tax rate for us.
2.) The Dems. refused to compromise on the issues that the Reps had with it which is the same thing as not compromising. A good compromise leaves everyone pissed off. Are the Reps being childish? Of course they are. Are the Dems being mature adults? No, they're being equally childish. Is it fair to blame one side? Not in my opinion, and not based what factual evidence I have read.
3.) O's presidency has been defined by both parties refusing to compromise. This is the largest issue because it has the most potential to decimate the American economy beyond any and all repair. Many economists agree on this point and not for the first time, Congress is ignoring the experts.
The republicans are literally holding the entire economy hostage over one law that was already compromised to death. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is. The dems /did/ compromise with them. If they hadn't, we'd have single payer health care. Instead we've got something almost identical to what they're calling "Romney care" in Massachusetts. The only "problem" the republicans have with this is that the Democrats are currently in power and will get the credit if it passes, and they don't like that.

As for your "article," check again. It's not an article, it's an editorial. There's a difference.

Also, Obama's presidency defined by refusal to compromise? You must have a short memory. He did nothing but compromise for at least his first two years in office, and he still got very little done, because the republicans were dead set on making sure he got nothing he wanted in an attempt to win control of the government back come the next election. The fact that you're not remembering any of this is showing that, with at least some people, their crap is working.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
The republicans are literally holding the entire economy hostage over one law that was already compromised to death. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.
The Republicans are fully deserving of the hate being thrown their way, but calling what they're doing "terrorism" is just hyperbolic nonsense. Officially:

FBI said:
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Source [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition](bold and underline added for emphasis)
Right from the start the official definition of terrorism already excludes what the Republicans are doing as terrorism, as they aren't doing anything outside the bounds of the law. Not to mention, you'd probably have a very hard time (i.e. an impossibly hard time) convincing any respectable judge that "intimidate or coerce" apply to the Republicans' tactics. The fact that we can debate whether or not the Earth Liberation Front should be considered terrorists,[footnote]As a (former) environmental studies student, I even have been in classes where people can openly support ELF without fear of harsh retaliation! Did I mention that this organization is officially responsible for more acts of domestic terror than any other organization in the United States?[/footnote] regardless of their history of arson and vandalism, should itself show just how far away Republican tactics are from what actual terrorism is.

I should also point out that claiming Republican tactics as terrorism is highly disrespectful towards those who have to live in constant fear of terrorist acts, or who have been victimized, or have a loved one who's been victimized, by terrorist acts. Have they blown anyone up? No. Have they started running around setting fire to every "liberal" media source? No. Did they storm some political meeting and hold the attendees hostage at gunpoint until the Democrats gave in to their demands? No. Have they run into some mall, school, or similar location and started shooting people in order to make a statement? No. Have they hijacked any planes? No. What they're performing is a political stunt that is neither illegal nor violently hostile towards anyone. Please, keep that in mind the next time you go around saying you don't know what else would be considered terrorism. Heck, you could probably find an example of "what is" considered terrorism just by reading the news one day.

I know the Republican tactics are absolutely abhorrent and that they could potentially do a lot of harm, not to mention that they're fully deserving of getting voted out next year. But comparing their acts to the horrors of terrorism is beyond hyperbolic.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
The republicans are literally holding the entire economy hostage over one law that was already compromised to death. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.
The Republicans are fully deserving of the hate being thrown their way, but calling what they're doing "terrorism" is just hyperbolic nonsense. Officially:

FBI said:
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Source [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition](bold and underline added for emphasis)
Right from the start the official definition of terrorism already excludes what the Republicans are doing as terrorism, as they aren't doing anything outside the bounds of the law. Not to mention, you'd probably have a very hard time (i.e. an impossibly hard time) convincing any respectable judge that "intimidate or coerce" apply to the Republicans' tactics. The fact that we can debate whether or not the Earth Liberation Front should be considered terrorists,[footnote]As a (former) environmental studies student, I even have been in classes where people can openly support ELF without fear of harsh retaliation! Did I mention that this organization is officially responsible for more acts of domestic terror than any other organization in the United States?[/footnote] regardless of their history of arson and vandalism, should itself show just how far away Republican tactics are from what actual terrorism is.

I should also point out that claiming Republican tactics as terrorism is highly disrespectful towards those who have to live in constant fear of terrorist acts, or who have been victimized, or have a loved one who's been victimized, by terrorist acts. Have they blown anyone up? No. Have they started running around setting fire to every "liberal" media source? No. Did they storm some political meeting and hold the attendees hostage at gunpoint until the Democrats gave in to their demands? No. Have they run into some mall, school, or similar location and started shooting people in order to make a statement? No. Have they hijacked any planes? No. What they're performing is a political stunt that is neither illegal nor violently hostile towards anyone. Please, keep that in mind the next time you go around saying you don't know what else would be considered terrorism. Heck, you could probably find an example of "what is" considered terrorism just by reading the news one day.

I know the Republican tactics are absolutely abhorrent and that they could potentially do a lot of harm, not to mention that they're fully deserving of getting voted out next year. But comparing their acts to the horrors of terrorism is beyond hyperbolic.
I'd say it's violently hostile to all the people who are out of work and stand a chance of losing their homes as a direct result of this little stunt. And to say that legality has anything to do with whether something is an act of terrorism or not is spurious -- otherwise there could be no such thing as "state sponsored terrorism," which I guess, say, the Assad regime would be happy to hear. You can argue about international law, but you and I both know that's not what the FBI meant with that definition.

And it's a hostage situation being carried out to make a political point. The only difference here is instead of killing people outright, they're preventing them from going to work, and putting them in danger of going hungry or becoming homeless. And there is no negotiating with a person who is willing to do something like that to make a point, they've drawn their line in the sand and they won't budge until they get everything.

Edit: besides, as your last sentence points out, I wasn't literally saying "Terrorists! Send in Seal Team 6!" As you aptly noted, it was a comparison -- and in particular, a metaphor for why negotiating won't do any good.
 

zxvcasdfqwerzxcv

Senior Member
Nov 19, 2009
126
0
21
The USA is going through it's own economic craziness at the moment. The current situation on the budget may have much larger implications beyond the US as well, which is worrying. However, just to refer directly to the OPs post; all modern capitalist economies operate with a large amount of debt. It seems that since around the end of WWII, excessive borrowing has been normal policy. This is particularly true in a lot of European economies, such as the UK, funding extraordinarily expensive national healthcare and other nation services (not a bad thing, but that money has to come from somewhere). A huge factor that these debts hinge on is the interest rates, which are incredibly low now (something like 0.5% compared the more than 10% in the '70s.) Any upward fluctuation of that can be disastrous (look at Argentina!) Now this is just my basic understanding of it, and also I've had a few drinks, so I hope I'm not completely incorrect, hah!
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
I'd say it's violently hostile to all the people who are out of work and stand a chance of losing their homes as a direct result of this little stunt.
That's an incredibly loose way of using the term "violent". Sorry for arguing semantics, but the violence aspect is rather important to our understanding of terrorism. I mean, unless you want to say that firing someone is being "violently hostile" to them, then we really need to move away from the gross exaggerations simply because we don't like a group of people.

And it's a hostage situation being carried out to make a political point. The only difference here is instead of killing people outright, they're preventing them from going to work, and putting them in danger of going hungry or becoming homeless. And there is no negotiating with a person who is willing to do something like that to make a point, they've drawn their line in the sand and they won't budge until they get everything.
Sorry, but this is just coming across as a false equivalence. You've basically taken similarities, ignored the differences, butchered the meaning of the word "violence", and said "Yep, it's terrorism", with absolutely no consideration for what terrorism actually is or the actual horrors that it inflicts on people. In other words, you simply say that because it seriously harms people and is part of a political game that it is terrorism, but completely dismiss the fact that it isn't violent in any way (except with the aforementioned butchering of the word's meaning) or that their methodology is vastly different than what constitutes as "terrorism".

Yes, what the Republicans have done is completely immoral, at best showing gross ignorance of the effects of their actions, and at worst indicating that their political ideologies are more important to them than the people they claim to represent. But still, we do not need to stoop so low as to call them terrorists just to confirm in our minds that they are some of the worst scum this nation has to offer outside of actual criminals and terrorists. Let terrorists be considered terrorists, and let Republicans be considered Republicans.[footnote]As a side note, let's also understand that not all Republicans are as horrible as the ones playing these political games. There are some truly great Republicans who simply want the best for this nation and won't stoop so low as to play these abhorrent political games. When I say "Republicans", I mean the extreme ones who would pull these horrendous stunts.[/footnote] We don't need to treat the two as equivalent to make a point on Republican immorality, and we may even weaken our argument by saying the two are the same.
 

sushkis2

New member
Apr 14, 2011
372
0
0
Oh, dear, now I can definitely say, that I have at least some perspective on all the finer details of the whole situation out there in the west... But I was just pondering by myself - All of those people, currently on that unpaid vacation, are they really as screwed as some of you guys said they are? I reckon, if you got yourself in the government of all places, there must be at least some use to your skillset outside of that. Aren't there any temporary solutions, like office or construction jobs they could indulge themselves in? In all honesty, just rolling over and sucking your thumb 'til it all blows over sounds like the most retarded thing to do.

One last thought, but you might wanna take these words with a bit of tartar sauce, or however that phrase was: With all these stupid people killing themselves in front of the Capitol building and suicides in general, considering a temporary career in the grave digging business might be quite the good idea.
 

gavinmcinns

New member
Aug 23, 2013
197
0
0
sushkis2 said:
So, I've just heard that the US have got themselves in a sticky situation, on the account of borrowing too much money from the chinese. Since a major part of the general gaming industry is revolving around the US, I think there may be some negative effects on the business in question. What's your take on the situation?

I myself am from Europe and Have just found out about this whole circus and the full extent of the situation. Enlighten me. Enlighten each other. Just let's not blame this on anybody, shall we?
The us economy shifted radically in the 80's when Reagan began deregulating the banks, gatekeepers of the economy.he was also the only president to lower taxes for the rich while simultaneously raising them for the poor througayroll taxes.

This led to a decrease in income, but during his presidency he spent a crazy amount of money expanding certain programs like the CIA and NSA, typically more foreign policy dealings in nature. He gave Osama bin laden influence with millions of dollars in CIA money which he used to buy weapons to kill his more moderate opponents, which is why the middle east is such a fuvking mess rright now.

Now keep in mind that the us regularly went into debt during wartime, this was typical. What was atypical was how Reagan increased deficit spending tpay for tax cuts for the rich, and security in foreign soil.

Our national debt is 17 trillion and rising. We spent all our goddamn money on a needlessly long war in Afghanistan, subsidiesnfor massive, hugely profitable corporations like Exxon Mobil (hundreds of billions in subsidies). We paid a trillion and more dollars for a retarded war in Iraq that is basically a modern crusade in terms of how it set us all back.in the meantime we have an aging population of seniors who are living longer and taking more expensive medication and treatment. That is our debt. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, we owe money to the whole goddamn world. We are the biggest debtor nation on earth, and you've had no choice but to accept a lower position on the pyramid
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
Gavin, the debt really doesn't matter. The world's not going to be as stable as it currently is for much longer, as the effects of global warming worsen. The creditor/debtor system requires a certain social stability that simply will not be there - debts no longer matter when the system breaks.

Prior to such further developments, the interest payment on the debt is quite low, at just 1.4% of GDP.

The "debt crisis" is manufactured fear-mongering to allow the far-right to gain greater political and economic control.