USA and China changing places??

[DuncanONeil]

"The general opinion seems to be that Bush left such a debt that Obama cannot handle it when harmstrong between the senate and the congress"
If this is the opinion of Danish news I think they have drunk the Kool Aid. True the debt increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion over eight years. But at the rate the current administration is spending, if they have the same time frame, they will ADD $14 trillion to the debt. That is a second doubling in 8 years, but it would be way worse than adding $5 trillion (actually a bit less).

Actually agree with Stealth, China is having problems as well. The US administration is trying to solve this "crisis" the same way they tried in the '30s. That took 10 years & a world war. Not sure we can deal with another war of that magnitude!!

On Danish news there is a debate as to whether the whole US economy is on the point of collaps. The general opinion seems to be that Bush left such a debt that Obama cannot handle it when harmstrong between the senate and the congress, and that the situation is worse than in Greece. It is speculated that the only solution is to apply to China for extention of loans, and that that will eventually have a big impact on the world power structure, and that China might well, eventually, take over the role that USA has now.

What does the list think of all this?

[lucy]

"The general opinion seems to be that Bush left such a debt that Obama cannot handle it when harmstrong between the senate and the congress"
[COLOR="#00FF00"]If this is the opinion of Danish news I think they have drunk the Kool Aid. True the debt increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion over eight years. But at the rate the current administration is spending, if they have the same time frame, they will ADD $14 trillion to the debt. That is a second doubling in 8 years, but it would be way worse than adding $5 trillion (actually a bit less).
/COLOR]

Yeah, but then again he's got to pay a lot of interest on the ten trillion. Too lazy to figure out how much that is annually, but I'd say it buys a lot of hawt shoes.
Also, Obama has to live with two wars his idiot of a predecessor with his idiots of cronies started (and couldn't win).

[thir]

Yeah, but then again he's got to pay a lot of interest on the ten trillion. Too lazy to figure out how much that is annually, but I'd say it buys a lot of hawt shoes.
Also, Obama has to live with two wars his idiot of a predecessor with his idiots of cronies started (and couldn't win).

And a huge bank crisis.

[leo9]

And a huge bank crisis.

Also the work of the prevous administration, which dismantled all the controls that were meant to prevent it, because, you know, unfettered capitalism is the engine of prosperity.

There's a conspiracy theory that they knew perfectly well that the economy was riding for a fall, but the crash was supposed to happen after the election, so it could all be blamed on the Dems. If true, this shows that they couldn't get anything right, from conquering a bankrupt country with a crippled army and a divided population, to creating an economic disaster. But the sheeple are still blaming Obama, so I guess it worked just the same.

I think it's not so much about nations: it's more that free market capitalism, like Soviet communism, is a system that has been tried till it crashed. What China and India have in common is a model that mixes a powerful State and entepreneurial capitalism, having come to it from opposite political directions; most of their problems are about getting the balance of state regulation and enterprise right, and stopping the capitalists taking too much power. Europe used to run on versions of that model, till we were persuaded to try the American method of taking off all the controls and letting the money-jugglers do as they pleased. Which worked wonderfully till the Ponzi schemes collapsed.