Debt Drags the Dragon

W R Collier Jr July 23, 2014

BUSINESS NEWS- WORLD

China’s Debt Reaches 250% of GDP

William R Collier Jr. – For the past five years, we have been writing about China as a paper tiger with inflated numbers, and now analysis has revealed that China’s much-vaunted “economic miracle” is nothing more than the result of debt spending on a massive scale.

Stephen Green at Standard Chartered has calculated that China’s actual debt is now 250% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But in 2009, China’s debt was only around 70% of its GDP, making this meteoric rise alarming. This debt includes both public and private debt. However, in China, the government controls much of the corporate world and financial institutions.

With a reported GDP of $9.6 trillion, China’s total debt should equal around $24 trillion. The US, by comparison, has a GDP of around $16.24 trillion, with a total debt burden of $42.2 trillion. Total public debt stands at $17.1 trillion.

While total government debt may be 53% of GDP, a major portion of the corporate and financial sector debt is directly driven by the government which operate a communist “management” policy that, at best, mixes free market policies with their overall Party agenda.

In the United States, government and private debt equal 260% of the GDP, with federal government debt right at 105% of GDP and private debt at 155% of GDP, but much of this private debt is independent of government obligation.

US Debt has also risen. At the end of 2008, just before President Obama was sworn into office, US public debt stood at around $10 trillion with a GDP at around $14.5 trillion. At the end of 2013, US public debt stood at $16.7 trillion compared to a GDP of $16.9 trillion. It is projected that 2014’s GDP will stay at around $16.9 trillion, while public debt has gone over $17.6 trillion. Household debt in the US, money owed by individuals, it at $13 trillion, near where it was in 2007, and has shrunk since the end of 2008 both as a percentage of total debt and in terms of raw amounts.

But while the total US debt has risen around 40% since 2009, an alarming number to be sure for some, Chinese debt has risen from a little under 80% of GDP to 251% of GDP, and that’s just the debt we know about. The Chinese are known for manipulating numbers in their favor, which usually means that if the numbers look bad, they are probably worse.

It would appear then that much of China’s “success” and even “growth” has been driven by a massive spending program, funneled through “private” but government controlled institutions to prop up what remains an essentially communist, and, therefore, unsustainable economy.

The New Obama Economy

W R Collier Jr August 2, 2013

Obamanomics

Bill Collier

The new (Obama) economy is a combination of a shrinking workforce, a higher than ever proportion of part-time to full-time jobs, and lower wages with real wealth shrinking for most Americans for the first time in American history. It is not just that wealth is being transferred from targeted groups not supportive of the Administration to their supporters, although this is happening, but it is also a matter of real shrinking wealth as lower wages, fewer full time jobs, rising health care costs, and the rising cost of regulations are eating into people’s pockets, and their savings.

(more…)

Chavez Wins 3rd Term in Venezuela Election

W R Collier Jr October 8, 2012

Majority in Venezuela Vote to Eat Minority

WORLD- Bill Collier

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb having a vote about what to have for lunch”.

Venezuela’s election wasn’t even close. The progressive strong man, Hugo Chavez, handily defeated state governor Henrique Capriles 55 to 45 in the presidential election.

But WHY, when you consider the miserable state of Venezuela’s economy, the fact that Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, is the murder capital of the WORLD, and the fact that Chavez is a menace to individual political and economic freedom?

Nobody is claiming that the vote count was crooked. Chavez is, however, accused of spending the nation’s oil revenues on his campaign, including giving hand-outs to any group of people who will vote for him.

The progressive strong man offered more of the same- more state control over the economy, more socialist wealth redistribution, and less political and economic freedom for all. Despite this, if the vote count was accurately reported, 55% of the people elected to continue down the road to a state-controlled society.

This really does give meaning to the old phrase “democracy is two wolves and a lamb having a vote about what to have for lunch”. The majority vote to eat the minority, almost every time.

This is a fundamental flaw in “pure democracy”, especially with an under-educated populace and a media establishment that parrots only one party line….but enough about what’s happening in America, this is all about Venezuela.

Do the 55% who voted to eat the 45% really think that eating their producers, and shackling them with crippling regulations, is going to work out for ANYONE in the long term, do they really think that this model is NOT going to produce more tyranny, less freedom, more control, less opportunity, and, ultimately, chaos and poverty? They evidently cannot see past their own IMMEDIATE parochial interests.

The legitimate power of the state, as defined in an objective reading of the Bible, for instance, does not extend into the realms of the sacred, the social, and the market beyond keeping the peace.

Even many who do not embrace the Bible can surely agree that this standard is better than “government can do anything it wants, as long as some popular vote is behind the politicians who run the state”.

By this standard anything MOST people want is “legitimate”, even if what they want is your life, your liberty, and your property.

For the 45% who chose to move away from the progressive nanny state and towards greater freedom and opportunity, the future looks like this-the majority are going to continue to eat the whole until there’s nothing left for anyone.

Obama 2013- IF Obama Wins- Hope Lives On

W R Collier Jr October 6, 2012

Obama 2013- Freedom Still Lives On

WASHINGTON- Bill Collier

An Obama win does not mean the end of the world or the demise of the nation IF freedom lovers actually focus on their local and state governments.

For those whose priorities are ethics and morality first and then strengthening family and marriage, free and equal opportuniy for all. The economy, and America’s global security, an Obama win would be a setback. We can expect more debt, bigger and bigger government, higher energy prices, global compromise with Islamists, an all-out assault on Christian faith and values, even persecution of churches, wealth transfer from the producers to Obama suporters, among many other negative consequences.

You can be sure that Obama will continue to follow the Cass Sunstein model of regulatory tyranny in an effort to get around, and openly contradict, the will of Congress. INDEED things could get so bad that a real Constitutional crisis would emerge with open defiance of these exrra-legal regulations amd executive orders.

Publicly funded late-term abortion on demand, however, remains the greatest threat of a second term for the abortion president. Obama’s fanatical devotion to infanticide and population control is going to come to the fore if he is re-elected.

All of the things Obama accuses his opponents of he will do.

Obama will end social security, medicare and medicaid as we know it, taking benefits from millions to pay for his continued nationalization of the entire economy- his goal is total federal management over every industry in an effort to create a socialist and secular utopia. Of course he is lying about his goals and plans for the future. This is the typical path for radical socialists whose real beliefs are so unpopular.

THAT being said, if freedom seekers take the fight for a strong and prosperous free society to the local level, much of Obama’s socialist, anti-Christian agenda can be stunted and weathered.

Getting local officials to commit to resisting extra-legal and immoral policies is the key. This is what the focus of our energy needs to be if Obama wins. It would be a setback, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Unlimited v Limited Gov

W R Collier Jr June 20, 2012

A Freedomist Perspective On The 2012 Election- By Bill Collier- The 2012 election is about unlimited government, as envisioned by the ideology of socialism. Socialism is a broad term: in its strictest application socialism is the total abolition of private property and the imposition of a planned economy with the state being the sole economic authority.

Not all socialists, however, are for this brand of socialism, at least initially. There are protosocialists who want to move towards socialism in small increments. There are neo-socialists who seek socialist goals but who are willing to rely on indirect government control, via taxes and wealth redistribution, over private property which they concede or allow to maintain an existence on paper only.

Socialism is achieved when all or most economic decisions are at least regulated by a central government. Such socialism might be neosocialism, protosocialism, or full-blown socialism: but one thing it isn’t is a truly free market.

The fundamental weakness of a free market program isn’t its program but its presentation. Socialism’s appeal is the promise that people can be guaranteed a level of wellness regardless of their ability, work ethic, or circumstances: this promise cannot ever be fulfilled but time and time again voters are fooled by it. The counter-claim by a free market advocate, that socialism will impoverish the nation while everyone under a free market CAN prosper just doesn’t sound appealing to someone who, frankly, might not want to do the work or take the risks required!

Long before we debate on the merits of charity towards the poor and needy, we need to establish a framework of understanding about the role, and authority, of government, or the state. It would be reasonable to say that there must be some kind of limits to the role and authority of the state, to say otherwise is only to invite trouble, because a state without limits is tyranny waiting to happen.

There is an argument I have heard that goes like this- if you like the fire department, social security, Medicaid/Medicare, and public schools then you have no right to argue that something like Obamacare is socialism. The logic they use in making this argument is that if Obamacare is socialism, then so are these other things, and if you don’t have a problem with these things, then you shouldn’t have a problem with Obamacare.

It is ironic, is it not, that the opponents of many of these programs actually said at the time words to the effect that these programs were “creeping socialism” and that they would be used to excuse full-fledged socialism at some later date. If you insist that these programs are a form of socialism, it is obvious that Americans have decided that they can tolerate a “little” socialism. The promise that was made when these programs were passed was that they would NOT lead to unlimited government, but now the argument is that if we accept PART of the socialist program then we MUST accept total socialism.

I would argue that NONE of these programs is worth keeping in a healthy and free society, although I am decidedly in the minority. The point is that Americans have accepted a partial socialism, this does not mean that they have to accept total socialism, which, by its nature, results in an unlimited, versus a limited, government.

There is no question that we, as a society, can and should care for those who lack, those who suffer, and those who cannot care for themselves. To say that everyone who is poor is poor merely because they don’t work hard is to ignore real prejudice, exploitation, and injustice that are at least as much of a factor as upbringing, environment, or sheer laziness. The real question is what price must we all pay to achieve this end- must we accept unlimited government and full-fledged socialism as a price for caring for the poor and needy? Must we all become like serfs on the government plantation all to help people who are impoverished and exploited?

It is better to be free and suffer, and be poor, than to have all your base animal needs, and lusts, satisfied at the expense of losing your freedom and, thereby, your dignity as a human being.

In 2012 America will be asked to decide (as we are every election) whether we will hear the siren call of utopian promises at the expense of our freedom or whether we will bear our own burdens (while helping others who need our help) without giving up one shred of our freedom.