45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Does it matter to Trump what the BBC says? What about ITN or most of the media in Europe. On the whole, they would report Trump and his antics in much the same way.
By the same token, and as per my previous post, the basis for him giving two stuffs what any of them think of his exclusion decision at this stage is...Greg66 said:
jsf said:
Eric Mc said:
What is your definition of "bankrupt" then?
The same as everyone else uses. Try looking up what it means yourself.Countries with their own currency cant go bankrupt.
I was using the expression in its more "loose" meaning rather than the precise legal definition.
But then, I forgot this was PH and that you will be picked up on any word if it isn't 100% precise.
To get back to my original point, excessive expenditure purely on expanding the military creates work and profit, for a while. But it must be financed somehow - either by taxation , exports or borrowing. My suspicion is that Trump will take America down the borrowing route even more than it currently is and the outcome, whether you call it "bankrupt" or some other term, won't be good.
But then, I forgot this was PH and that you will be picked up on any word if it isn't 100% precise.
To get back to my original point, excessive expenditure purely on expanding the military creates work and profit, for a while. But it must be financed somehow - either by taxation , exports or borrowing. My suspicion is that Trump will take America down the borrowing route even more than it currently is and the outcome, whether you call it "bankrupt" or some other term, won't be good.
s2art said:
Just that, not technically bankrupt in the strict meaning of the word. Bankrupcy is a legal term whereby a person or an organization gets protection from its creditors when it can't pay them back. Instead, countries "default," which means they don't pay back their creditors. (with potentially nasty consequences)
Bankruptcy is the process that follows having become bankrupt. Bankrupt, legally, means EITHER unable to pay one's debts as and when the fall due (and legally able but unwilling counts as unable) OR assets exceed liabilities (including, technically, contingent and future ones, but they are rarely taken into account, at least fully).
So sovereign debt default ticks the criteria for being bankrupt.
There's no process under international law for a country to enter a process similar to bankruptcy or corporate insolvency, so they tend to do a deal - a haircut type deal - which is similar to a creditors' voluntary arrangement conceptually.
Zimbabwe defaulted on its debts, printed more money, ran inflation up into the billions of percent, stopped printing money because it had become worthless, and ended up abandoning its central bank and adopting USD as its currency.
Argentina defaulted on its debts, did a haircut deal or two and still can't pay.
jsf's point - apparently focussed on the idea that had Greece not been in the Euro it would have been able to pay its creditors - seems to be that a central bank is a magic money tree so a country can never end up unable to repay. But once the tree loses its magic, that's not true.
Greg66 said:
jsf said:
Eric Mc said:
What is your definition of "bankrupt" then?
The same as everyone else uses. Try looking up what it means yourself.Countries with their own currency cant go bankrupt.
When someone goes bankrupt generally their assets are taken, then their debt is written off using the laws in place which vary significantly country to country. They then get to start again.
Unlike domestic bankruptcy, there are no international laws or courts for settling sovereign debt, so bankruptcy doesn't exist at this level.
When a country can no longer service its debt, the assets of that country can not be repossessed in a way that would be able to happen to an individual. The usual form of asset grabs in such circumstances are via war, the alternative is to write off or restructure the debt with bond holders of the national debt losing out. This is what has been happening with Greece for example.
Eric Mc said:
Does it matter to Trump what the BBC says? What about ITN or most of the media in Europe. On the whole, they would report Trump and his antics in much the same way.
The BBC is well respected and trusted here amongst the thinking classes and BBC Newshour is broadcast on NPR. BBC news is also shown on PBS and often quoted on other news. Eric Mc said:
I was using the expression in its more "loose" meaning rather than the precise legal definition.
But then, I forgot this was PH and that you will be picked up on any word if it isn't 100% precise.
To get back to my original point, excessive expenditure purely on expanding the military creates work and profit, for a while. But it must be financed somehow - either by taxation , exports or borrowing. My suspicion is that Trump will take America down the borrowing route even more than it currently is and the outcome, whether you call it "bankrupt" or some other term, won't be good.
Potentially he might learn from our wonderful NHS system. Buy now, pay (much much more) later.But then, I forgot this was PH and that you will be picked up on any word if it isn't 100% precise.
To get back to my original point, excessive expenditure purely on expanding the military creates work and profit, for a while. But it must be financed somehow - either by taxation , exports or borrowing. My suspicion is that Trump will take America down the borrowing route even more than it currently is and the outcome, whether you call it "bankrupt" or some other term, won't be good.
For a businessman this may seem like a great approach. UK dumbass politicians seemed to be sold by it.
jsf said:
a debt default.
When someone goes bankrupt generally their assets are taken, then their debt is written off using the laws in place which vary significantly country to country. They then get to start again.
Unlike domestic bankruptcy, there are no international laws or courts for settling sovereign debt, so bankruptcy doesn't exist at this level.
When a country can no longer service its debt, the assets of that country can not be repossessed in a way that would be able to happen to an individual. The usual form of asset grabs in such circumstances are via war, the alternative is to write off or restructure the debt with bond holders of the national debt losing out. This is what has been happening with Greece for example.
You've elided "being bankrupt", which is what you referred to and which is a state of affairs, with "bankruptcy'", which is a process prescribed by a country's laws that can follow on from being bankrupt. When someone goes bankrupt generally their assets are taken, then their debt is written off using the laws in place which vary significantly country to country. They then get to start again.
Unlike domestic bankruptcy, there are no international laws or courts for settling sovereign debt, so bankruptcy doesn't exist at this level.
When a country can no longer service its debt, the assets of that country can not be repossessed in a way that would be able to happen to an individual. The usual form of asset grabs in such circumstances are via war, the alternative is to write off or restructure the debt with bond holders of the national debt losing out. This is what has been happening with Greece for example.
Countries can be the former - bankrupt.
Courts can adjudicate on sovereign debt, btw. So-called vulture funds trade debts of bankrupt countries (e.g. Argentina) and when they think the country has recovered a bit, sue on the debt.
jsf said:
Greg66 said:
Countries can be the former - bankrupt.
They cant.and around we go.
You've had it explained to you. If despite that you don't understand it, don't make that everyone else's problem. It's yours.
That's the end of this interesting off topic diversion as far as I'm concerned.
HTH.
t really started under Reagan, and then spiralled out of control with Bush/Obama. Is it possible that the US could ever go back to the Carter/Nixon days?Efbe said:
jsf said:
So you agree a country cant be bankrupt.
Whatever Trump does wont change the fundementals, the USA owes a shed load of money and wont be changing anytime soon.
is that just the change, rather than cumulative?Whatever Trump does wont change the fundementals, the USA owes a shed load of money and wont be changing anytime soon.
The current debt is approx. $20 Trillion, 110% of national GDP
This is good advices.s2art said:
cqueen said:
So Obama more than doubled their entire debt. Never understood why people fawn over him.
They got hit almost as hard as we did in 2008. (not to say I liked Obama, just that there was not much he could do about that particular problem)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff