It's like looking at a man with 50k in credit card debt and only 5k in the bank. But he has a mansion worth 1 million that he owns in its entirety. 1m in equity, well in excess of its debts.
Yes, Nixon divided the dollar from gold. And yes, we have a huge amount of "theoretical" cash in the world which outweighs physical cash of coins, paper bills, and rare minerals. But the US has land, territories, legal rights. It has trading contracts with other countries, something that Britain, with is recent exit from the EU, can tell you are incredibly valuable things, and a bitch to negotiate. We have manufacturing, we have brands, technologies, an international reputation, and we have taxable citizens with career prospects and educations who represent a strong annual income in the form of taxes for many years to come.
These realities make the deficits pale in comparison. Look at how favorable the US Federal Governments borrowing rates are. Why do you think countries are willing to lend to us for such low interest rates? Because the prospects of our future earning power are incredibly strong. Our deficits are just one tiny drop in our potential future earnings, and like any creditor, countries with available liquidity are more than happy to lend, and therefore make money, to a country with robust earning power, and a net worth well in excess of our current debts.
In fact, just to hit home how strong the US' position really is, the US owns thirty four percent of the global total wealth. Let that sink in. We own a little over a third of all the wealth in the entire world. There's 200-some odd countries, and if you put every single one of them together over us, they only double our wealth. China only owns 9%.
So use that to remind any slack-jawed drool spewling Trump voter who claims we aren't "winning" anymore.
EDIT: I would also just like to point out that what people are referring to when they talk about China's economy is its growth. In the last twenty years, China has more than doubled the size of its economy - but that's because it was only doubling a single digit number. Can you imagine what it takes to grow our economy at this point?
Capitalism depends on growth. This is why China is so enormously important. You can't shove Apple products down American's throats nearly as fast, because Americans already have shit. Sure, there is always the stray idiot who trades his perfectly fine iPhone 6 in for a shitty iPhone 7 after owning it for only a year, but these idiots are rare. However in places like China, strong growth combines with a strong need, specifically, a need for Western goods like iPhone, and clothes, and Hollywood movies, and all the things that we are saturated with, but they are not, and all their growing middle class for which these things would previously have been incomprehensible luxuries are suddenly able to afford them and are buying with a fervor.
The ideal consumer in a capitalist world is someone who has a great deal of disposable wealth but a relative lack of things. That's China right now. They're building cities, modern Western amenities, adopting Western needs for clothing and cosmetics and all the things we know and love and make. And so with their newfound wealth they buy, and buy, and buy, and buy.
But this is the paradoxical thinking in capitalist economies. To be huge is sometimes seen as a problem; to be becoming huge is seen as an incredible asset. The same with companies; some companies grow so large that growth is virtually impossible. Even though they are stable, and paying all their bills, stable companies are not as attractive to investors as growing companies. If I have 1m dollars, where would I be more likely to invest it: in a giant company whose stock value, while high, never moves? Or some small but fast-growing up-and-comer, whose stock value is low, but whose value is guaranteed to grow? No question: invest in the grower, because your 1m investment will grow relative to the growth of their stock.
China is currently this growing economy, and in a capitalist global structure, you need growth. Because in America, where we already have everything, and are relatively saturated, you need to either A) invent radically new products and technologies which no one has but everyone wants (smartphones were an example of this, but experts predict the number of these types of advancements are shrinking), or you B) find a foreign economy whose citizens are growing richer but are not saturated with our products yet.
China fuels global growth because as they grow, they need things. Countries and companies sell things; thus, China fuels growth. China needs oil, steel, minerals, food - they need a lot to fuel their economic growth, but at some point (maybe soon), their growth will slow. And that means other countries and companies will sell less than they are currently selling, and they'll be back to the drawing board.
This is where the trouble is. Not in debts, but in slowing economies. This is why it is also wise, for all of us, to invest in the growth of pre-industrialized nations. The better they do, the better we all do, because we open up new markets to export our goods and therefore strengthen our economies.
This means we are in a state of mutual dependence - China offers cheaper labor and materials for American manufacturing, but they also offer a gigantic wealthier population to gobble up those goods at retail prices.
But when China's demand slows - when its growth slows down, our GDP shrinks, because there are simply less people available to buy the things our country manufactures.
EDIT EDIT: Wow! Triple gold, thank you to everyone who commented. This was a pretty big shock to me on a third-tier comment I didn't think would ever see the light of day. Honored and humbled.
Everyone has had some great dialog beneath this - even my detractors! I love good, open debate, and the subsequent debate this post fostered is worth more to me than gilding (though gilding is great too! Even though gold isn't nearly as valuable as Glenn Beck may lead you to believe it is).
Couple things: Yes, I insulted Trump voters, and iPhone 7 buyers. No, I'm not sorry. Yes, it was a little unprofessional. Fairness to me, I had no anticipation this post would gain the visibility it did, or prompt the discussions it did; if I had, I would have probably been a little more polite (though isn't frankness and vulgarity Trump's big appeal with you people?) I, too, as a human, enjoy throwing around phonetically appealing vulgarities on Reddit late at night. I really dislike Hillary too, and still haven't returned my potentially explosive Note7 yet, if its any consolation.
When I wrote this, I was speaking off-the-cuff; many people have nicely, and sometimes not so nicely, pointed out misspeaks, like Britain technically not having exited the EU yet, the fact that the Fed Gov't doesn't technically own all recorded assets in the US financial position (immaterial), that my metaphors aren't perfectly symmetrical with the concepts I'm using them to describe (I was never much of a poet). I'm immensely grateful for the response, the compliments, and for all of the many nuanced discussions that have taken place below. If this topic interests people, I encourage you, please read this thread in its entirety, and listen to what a lot of smart people have had to say about it, and then continue on your own research.
As a final disclaimer, in this OP, i was not trying to advocate that everything is peachy and rosy and sunny in global economics. We have a lot of challenges. And $19t in debt isn't doomsday, but it isn't a figure to celebrate, either. There have been financial missteps. There continue to be financial missteps. Wealth inequality, over-regulation in some sectors, under-regulation in others. Read, and be informed, and bring that to the voting booth in this very important upcoming election. Most of congress is up for the taking. I won't tell you who to pick - but a positive national net worth doesn't mean things can't hurt and be unpleasant for us. Vigilance of an informed public is the best way to make sure politicians don't use historically boring financial subjects to inflict grievous harm on our economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment