A Memo All Women Should Read Who Voted "No" on the State of Tennessee Constitution's Amendment 1 Referendum to Regulate Standards for Abortions to be Performed

A memo all women should read who voted "No" on the State of Tennessee Constitution's Amendment 1 Referendum:

The people of the State of Tennessee have spoken. We passed Amendment 1 by way of referendum 54% to 46%.

How will Amendment 1 read on the ballot?

Part 1

"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion ….”

This restores the TN Constitution to where it was prior to the 2000 TN State Supreme Court decision by making our constitution neutral on the question of abortion.

Abortion would not be banned.  Abortion remains legal across the U. S. due to Roe v. Wade.

Part 2

"Nothing in this Constitution … requires the funding of an abortion….”

The TN Constitution would be neutral on the question of tax payer funding of abortion.

 Part 3

”….. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

This restores the TN Constitution to where it was prior to the 2000 TN State Supreme Court decision by putting regulation of abortion back into the hands of the people through their elected representatives. 

Full amendment language: 

“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."

____________

"We the people have spoken...."

We the people have spoken, and power resides within the consent of the governed. To have voted "no" to deregulating the state's role in providing the standards to all rights to an abortion not only perpetuates the misnomer that Nashville would have absolutely no say in regulating your reproductive rights, it also never guarantees that the federal government will not engage in population controls through birthing quotas and compulsory sterilizations per the Affordable Care Act's mandate to fund or defund any health care decision it chooses, which state-funded health care now owns your body through its impenetrable power to confiscate your earnings from your taxed incomes and your neighbor's.

What Nashville can do will always be superseded by what bureaucrats in Washington and in our White House intend. To open more abortion clinics with unqualified personnel is akin to allowing Barack Obama to slip in through the back door to further industrialize the abortion "non-for-profit" business by permitting more Kermit Gosnell-type of mass murderers who illegally kill babies past already regulated limits to be aborted as well as the mothers who through misapplied methods will die due to medically-unqualified incompetence. As the focus remains the same always among the poorly-veiled abortion industry through the taxpayer-driven Planned Parenthood operation, what will be the documented 79% of the organizations opening in black and Hispanic neighborhoods intentionally preying upon the morbidly impoverished under the guise that to kill is to impart compassion is only the racist animus of Margaret Sanger's eugenics policy speaking out among all pro-abortion advocates, to exterminate what she referenced as "human weeds" and "the unfit", her broadly defined "morons" among these racial demographics as well as her hope to do so through a global population control congress, moratoriums regulating a zero population growth while finally destroying Christianity and the entire capitalist order of the democracy she hated and feminists ostensibly claim to champion as one of many natural rights. For the black community that represents 34% of all abortions performed disproportionate to its 13% of the U.S. population as the third largest racial demographic, the intent is clear to all except to those too entrenched through militancy and violence in ensuring that licentiousness pays in both cash and blood, with no barriers to partition any limitations. Why else indeed would Knoxville's lone Planned Parenthood clinic be strategically located off N. Cherry Street in very close proximity to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and the Walter P. Taylor Homes public housing project?

To complain why men and truly responsible women who now see unlike the disgruntled faction over Amendment 1 passing who never have to apologize for why their individual mandate for their femininity can never be regulated by the use of force is to echo why so many of the same in opposition to funding abortions out of faith-based or conscientious objection reference militant feminism as the anti-democratic nickname "FemiNazis". To consider that Sanger, modern feminism's greatest champion, directly influenced Adolf Hitler's own eugenics program for manufacturing his and even her own global vision for a "master race" through their mutual colleague and acquaintance, German psychiatrist Dr. Ernst Rudin, the inconvenient truth behind Amendment 1's alternative of "No" only provides government deregulation of the further extermination of the same racial and impoverished demographics that if its unborn cannot be slaughtered even under post-birth conditions many angry voters now demand, it will subsidize these unfortunate souls into more abject poverty while the population will continue to grow as government welfare pays more to women to give birth even to multiple fathers, no questions asked, in employing the Malthusian principle of hierarchical necessities. No attempts to curtail where this sickening cycle of regulated genocide are more prevalent than in our major inner-cities, where Democrat political machines in power in Chicago without interruption at city hall for over 100 years and Detroit, which declared bankruptcy last year and is now receiving humanitarian aid and water from Canada after 60 years of Democrat absolutism drove the power of the UAW to destroy what once was among the world's most powerful cities. Today, more than one-third of all babies conceived are aborted in Detroit, a city whose population is already in decline as its civilian population continues to relocate to the same Bible Belt militant feminists hate, and those who remain in the Motor City are populated well-beyond the 75% threshold by Third World-standard black citizens who abort their own while killing in the majority of gang turf war casualties comprising a bulk of the city's enormous homicide figures. Simply deregulating the abortion industrial complex does not solve the problem because it exacerbates it through undocumented, unreported abortion procedures with no standards to safely be performed, no medical licensure needed and no paper trail of state subsidization to be available for transparency purposes as this will become a market-driven endeavor to diffuse this scourge onto others. It would regulate in stealth these procedures through back door federal subsidies too, which are granted at a steep price in order for the rise in "blood money profiteering" to be earned by silencing the voices it never granted through eventual population control measures like the birthing quotas under China's "one child policy" and eventual mandatory sterilization policies already under consideration. The rise of America's oversexualized rape culture was finally won through the federal government's mandate under the Affordable Care Act to fund and regulate who, what, how, when and where at the total abolition of the sovereignty over our own health care what it wants and what is cost effective. Once you sell your soul to government, your democratic mandate and even your own health and sovereignty are no longer legally yours to be decided. Ask the unprecedented number of dead veterans at our VA Hospitals who died due to neglect and intentional malpractice all while experiencing massive surpluses each of the Obama administration first five years, and like the aborted child, you will receive an loud and chillingly-silent reply. And once "Yes" becomes "No", other rights are destroyed until one day Atlas shrugged away what once was the beauty behind the liberty to choose and own property under one's talents and the strength to his or her ingenuity through individual initiative in favor of collectivization.

Opinion: All Conservatives Within the GOP Must Abandon It to Form a New Political Party Should the Establishment Fail to Provide the American People a Clear Choice Against Socialism

Opinion: All Conservatives Within the GOP Must Abandon It or Form a New Political Party:

Left: Ronald Reagan; Far Right: Margaret Thatcher.

In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in his iconic Revolutionary War pamphlet The American Crisis the following:

Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

And indeed, these are troubling times, times which we wish never were and ones where we feel that spring never was eternal and instead, we have lived amid our winter of discontent so long that we cannot recall to the contrary regarding our lives. As Autumn now bequeaths us the Equinox, the leaves are in free fall, and our world of order is now mired in an unprecedented state of existential entropy.

What we see today is the possibility of two fates for America. In Obama's design, he will seek to destroy it in order to replace it with an Afghanistan-style central authority from the 1980s during the Soviet occupation, where a Muslim by the name of Babrak Karmal, the leader of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, served as Moscow's puppet ruler. There will be no puppet dictator this time, since the enemy is far deadlier than what the Soviet Union posed to Afghanistan, Britain during our fight for independence or our own civil war. Our foe is from our interior in the form of many shadows yet to be revealed. He sleeps lying in state, the enemy from within. We yet know what should transpire, but by the day, a new scandal unfolds, and the socialist media collectively conceals all knowledge, except for Fox News. Attempts have been made to silence even that network, now the number one rated channel on cable and satellite, because its journalists are willing to challenge the status quo and, ergo, President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Free Speech in all its forms have faced their most perilous fight for their survival, as the president dispatched the FCC to investigate Fox News first, then specifically targeted an acquaintance of mine in James Rosen as well as the Associated Press for covering news the president found dangerous to his rule, to place federal censors in every media outlet in order to ensure that his agenda was revealed exactly as he demanded while Fox News and those that are conservative or libertarian would be crushed as misrepresentations of his truth and would face legal battles to destroy them. Tyranny once meant toppling a state and transforming it into a new territory as part of the conquering empire; today, Obama appears to be engaging in a traditional Soviet tactic of constructing a sphere of influence not only globally, but by importing his instruments for destruction from overseas. His first task is to achieve this in the Middle East and later, finish what he started in Latin America by creating a Pan American state. As Europe is now populated by a near-quarter who are Muslims, any invasion of the continent by the Islamic State will result in its collapses in less than two years, as most nations have no legal right to own firearms while the terrorists are having their weapons smuggled into the European Union's member states. Anti-Semitism and the persecution of Christians by not simply Muslims but the deadly rise to power of Neo-Nazi and fascists factions as far east as Ukraine will tip the balance of the nation into who will dominate it. Russia is a problem, but Moscow appears to be largely engaged in rhetoric synonymous to rattling one's sabre.

What do we know about the rising tide of GOP congressmen and senators poised to sweep the nation's legislative branch? They are appeasers, barely discernible from the party of Barack Obama that now is no longer simply of the Fabian socialist breed, but full-blown Marxist-Leninism. Today's Republican establishment is not at all what I would call neoconservatives, but rather Clinton era "New Democrats". Gov. Mitt Romney in 1992 voted for the late Massachusetts U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas for the party's presidential nominee in the primaries as he was a registered Democrat; Romney then ran as a Republican against Ted Kennedy in the 1994 midterm election, losing only be a total of 58% to 42% on the strength ostensibly that Kennedy's involvement in the William Kennedy Smith scandal risked his losing the election.  In reality, Romney only converted to the GOP to run, not because of ideological preferences being altered. RomneyCare, for all intents and purposes, was a much more accommodating model for what Obamacare would become; and having read of President Obama's covert operation he funded in Cuba, I am convinced his plans for structuring the Affordable Care Act are predicated on the Cuban model, a topic I will cover in a later article. For Sen. John McCain, he is only considered right-wing from the perspective he demands to shoot first and ask questions only if the enemy happens to survive; he continues to favor many of the president's positions regarding amnesty and is at times, ambiguous regarding the economy and of course, his being a self-proclaimed maverick due to crossing party lines in full support of the Democrats. Mitch McConnell is just the same, but even more mired in ambiguity just in what he plans to do regarding Obamacare. As for John Boehner, well, he is a crybaby, and Paul Ryan has drafted budgets calling for the failed Eurozone policy of austerity in an attempt to pay down the debt while employing the Obama hikes in taxation. Few establishment GOP politicians are very vocal regarding the abortion controversy, Second Amendment rights, rights to privacy as inferred by the Fourth Amendment and even the First Amendment. They are no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, who himself battled uphill many of these same politicians who either were in office in the 1970s and 1980s or like with Lamar Alexander's great influence, Howard Baker (both of whom are from Tennessee), did little to support the president's cut in welfare spending through the implementation of supply-side economics to create jobs and, through record numbers of taxpayers footing their fair share, lead to more wealth to pay for those who are invalid or down on their luck.

Perhaps no president since Ronald Reagan has enjoyed so profound an impact on the American stream of consciousness as Barack Obama. While Reagan created the phenomenon of a nation of Middle American Judeo-Christian, common sense ethos and values and principles in application to real life, Obama has succeeded in manufacturng an amoral state advocating Satanism and Islam, atheism and his own cult following among most Democrats still while Christians and Jews face the inevitable legal end to the right to practice their faith. Racial divisions today are worse than during the Jim Crow era, also created by the very same Democratic Party which today declares the black community and Hispanics too dumb and unsophisticated to vote for anything else that they cannot be fed lines of mularkey. What the Democrats created in terms of a political machine dominating the national polity for more than 80 years has metastasized into the threat that all democracy in America will end and global warfare through Obama's machinations poised to break out at anytime. And most guilty of all is the GOP as a whole. Those who are elected out of the Tea Party have no true power, but are still members Republicans who have no choice but to be collectivized in the crosshairs of its own political impotence.

Americans overwhelmingly desire a third party as the two have nearly become synonymous regarding the majority of policies. The lone difference is in how this is achieved through the question of how much money is to be spent, not why. Today, the Democratic Party under Obama employs Marxist tactics through organized crime syndicates, labor union bosses and community organizers in large inner cities intimidating potential voters at the booths, rigging machines, registering 800 new voters in New York City who are 168 years old and also in the state of New York, a message by party officials threatening its registered members that they have their information to know if they vote or not. In Chicago, a black pastor's church was vandalized and his family and congregation's lives threatened following his endorsement for the state of Illinois' GOP candidate for governor. I will provide the video below with the good man's interview.

For a party whose platform is justice for all, that justice is weighted very heavily to the left side of the scale. Once that transpires, those on the right are due to be served the wrong of the Obama political gulag' serfdom. 

Gallup recently released a poll with the not too shocking result that 58% of Americans believe a strong third party is necessary to restore democracy to the republic. Researchers from Princeton and Northwestern Universities determined that America is no longer a democratic state, but instead ruled by an oligarchy. President Obama wants to cede more of the American people's sovereignty to the United Nations through gun confiscation and climate change treaties that are not only unpopular here, but also are issues which have have debunked as counterproductive to what they address since neither are problematic today. Detroit city officials, in a state of panic in the aftermath of declaring bankruptcy, are receiving water and humanitarian aid supplies from Canada, and have considered calling upon the UN for more of the same. Along our borders as the president continues to permit the daily deluge of thousands of illegal immigrants who are gang members, drug lords and Islamic terrorists to cross, the humanitarian crisis is now so enormous that the UN ostensibly is calling upon the president to declare each illegal immigrant crossing over to be refugees, which then presents the opportunity for the international regulatory body to commandeer our southern borders and, for all intents and purposes, to cede America's sovereignty through the backdoor to the international community away from those who elected the man who unilaterally will have granted this illegally. The trend of taxation and public expenditures have grown to alarming levels for concern as interest rates are at 0.25% and inflation, 1.7% while debt is more than 106% of total GDP, meaning the federal government now is losing money, not even drawing any form for revenue or profit from the taxpayer. The danger America faces if it follows the Eurozone's policy of implementing a negative interest rate while continuing with quantitative easing to deflate our coinage is far more dangerous than what the world faced during stagflation. This will lead to the eventual hyperinflation of the global monetary supply, as paper currency will simply be printed at record totals not seen in the West since Weimar Germany during the 1920s in the post World War I term as it attempted to pay out from beneath its obligation issued under French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau to repay all debts through the Treaty of Versailles' War Guilt Clause. Hyperinflation in Germany during the 1920s led to the rise of the obscure Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler as dictator following the Reichstag fire in 1933 and, later, the second world war, the most destructive in human history. As nearly 93 million Americans are now out of the workforce, a retreading of William Shakespeare's famous line from Richard III is most applicable - Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of the Serengeti.

With every demand to raise the debt ceiling by the Democrats and President Obama, the GOP not only submits, it debates over how much, not if. The rate of taxation not only was raised for the top wage earners, it was hiked at far more damaging rates for the middle and sub-poverty line income brackets. Even Americans who do not earn an income are taxed 10%, while the difference in taxed incomes for the rich at 39.6% is to compare it to the lowest middle income bracket at 25%, and the problems with Obamacare and the obligatory Social Security and Medicare taxes are not included. Confiscatory taxation, therein, has harmed the poorest 90%, while the wealthy despite the top rate increase from 33% to 39.6%, are richer today than ever. To increase the minimum wage by 50% will only hurt the poorest 90%, while creating more wealth for rich who will simply lay off employees they consider too expensive to keep and are expendable in their eyes.

The last opportunity for the GOP to promise to be the change to Obama's "change" will commence once the party wins a near supermajority in both chambers of Congress. If it fails to repeal all of Obamacare, to defund the Executive Branch and finally revoke the Obama administration's right to habeas corpus, it will have proven itself complicit in the Democrats' manifestation of an American one party Marxist-Leninist state with the potential of legalizing Islam as a state religion, all of which would violate the very spirit of the First Amendment. Should the McConnell-run Senate fail to act and Speaker John Boehner continuing his apologism in appeasement, there will not be a Republican Party worthy of saving. And that is why we conservatives need to engage in a strong, concerted push towards either hijacking the party far more aggressively or registering the Tea Party as an actual political party, only rebranding it to a name Americans will know better as the Conservative Party. And while there is an actual Conservative Party in America today, the details for a potential mobilization of our ideological strengths and resources will be discussed upon the time any decision is posited forth for consideration. 

I look forward soon to address what the party's ideological platform would be. Right now, I leave you these ideas as food for thought and to discuss what you, my loyal readers, believe to be necessary under the exhaustion of the final attempt to America's history, culture and traditional identities to her culture. If America is to avoid its final curtain call, the following warning by Abraham Lincoln from "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois" January 27, 1838 must be heeded in its entirety:

Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), President of the United States (1861-65)

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. 

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." 

How Soon Will the Final Global Economic Collapse Arrive?

Discussion: How Soon Will the Final Global Economic Collapse Arrive? 

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

- Thomas Jefferson to Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, 26 December 1820 

Incompetence by any other name is not adequate in describing what, how and why the Obama administration and the Democratic Party engage in what they do. No party stoops so low with regards to election season than this party, a party whose grassroots are large urban area community organizers (Obama was one, for example) and corrupt labor union bosses and their clandestine allies within the organized crime syndicates. And though this is true, terrorism as sponsored by the Obama administration is now playing a role in intimidation by way of physical harm and fear tactics. Would it be at all surprising should this "Zombie Apocalypse" initiative funded by the Department of Homeland Security prove to be related to the Ebola outbreak which Obama has funded and brought to our very doorsteps? The criminal element that imbues the the Democratic Party cannot now nor ever be underestimated, and in one fashion or another, continue without a permanent solution to the problem. 

When a Democrat declares his or herself a liberal, should this not stand to reason that it is a bastardization of the true father of Western political thought John Locke's classical liberalism? Liberal only makes voters feel that voting Democrats into office will grant the liberty, but then again, what has that party ever known or embodied of liberty that it cannot achieve through force and intimidation? The Democrats cannot survive as a political entity without inner city labor and trade union bosses, community organizer and organized crime, and they surely could not fare very well had wealthy bank magnets controlled policies within the Federal Reserve. Socialism, which is the appropriate term today for the Democratic Party, can only be bankrolled by the many millions and billions donated or funded in stealth by their wealthy benefactors. George Soros himself caused the London Stock Exchange and the Bank of England to nearly go bankrupt after he undercut the Pound Sterling on Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992. To consider how this worked, I will provide you Investopedia's article on Soros, and why more than simply funding 30 known global press syndicates that the world should fear him:

How did George Soros "break the Bank of England"?

By Andrew Beattie AAA | 

A:

In Britain, Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992) is known as the day that speculators broke the pound. They didn't actually break it, but they forced the British government to pull it from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Joining the ERM was part of Britain's effort to help along the unification of the European economies. However, in the imperialistic style of old, she had tried to stack the deck. 

Although it stood apart from European currencies, the British pound had shadowed the German mark in the period leading up to the 1990s. Unfortunately, the desire to "keep up with the Joneses" left Britain with low interest rates and high inflation. Britain entered the ERM with the express desire to keep its currency above 2.7 marks to the pound. This was fundamentally unsound because Britain's inflation rate was many times that of Germany's. (Keep reading about this in Stop Keeping Up With The Joneses - They're Broke.) 

Compounding the underlying problems inherent in the pound's inclusion into the ERM was the economic strain of reunification that Germany found itself under, which put pressure on the mark as the core currency for the ERM. The drive for European unification also hit bumps during the passage of the Maastricht Treaty, which was meant to bring about the euro. Speculators began to eye the ERM and wondered how long fixed exchange rates could fight natural market forces. Spotting the writing on the wall, Britain upped its interest rates to the teens to attract people to the pound, but speculators, George Soros among them, began heavy shorting of the currency. 

The British government gave in and withdrew from the ERM as it became clear that it was losing billions trying to buoy its currency artificially. Although it was a bitter pill to swallow, the pound came back stronger because the excess interest and high inflation were forced out of the British economy following the beating. Soros pocketed $1 billion on the deal and cemented his reputation as the premier currency speculator in the world. 

For more on George Soros, see The 5 Most Feared Figures In Finance.

This question was answered by Andrew Beattie.

____________________

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) is the reason why Margaret Thatcher was deposed as Prime Minister. Into her position was John Major, who opposed the Thatcher standard of avoiding ceding British sovereignty to a federal Europe, and the end of a period where the Tories were truly a conservative party by our standard. The reason was clear in Soros' intent since in 1997, Labour for the first time in 18 years not only took Parliament, it routed the Major government that had turned Downing Street and Westminster into a brothel. Tony Blair rose to power as the prime minister, and while the Pound Sterling remained and is now far stronger than the Euro, Soros truly aided Thatcherism because Blair stated he believe free enterprise alone would create prosperity in Britain. Therefore, another example of monetizing and devaluing the coinage nearly bankrupted an entire nation, but was revived by a communist sympathizer. 

Some might gather this is happening today, as Europe is actually deflating in terms of the Euro as interest rates are now in the negatives. What this means, for lack of any easier explanation, is that banks in Europe must pay for applicants to take out a loan. Inflation is microscopic, but national deficits continue to rise even under Austerity because individual nations within the Eurozone continue to employ socialist models of economics. What has this model manufactured and how has it damaged Europe's economy? Read the graph below and do not have a stroke at your horror.

______________________

How could any of these models continue to lower interest rates where there are no measurable ones that do not require banks to pay out when it literally takes massive losses with each loan granted? This is a term I liken to being called Casino Economics, and with the Eurozone, they hedged there bets and they lost all their chips. As these are part of an article from The Telegraph, I will provide for you the actual details and the obligatory link citation:

A key gauge of deflation risk in Europe is flashing red, dropping to record lows on fears of fresh recession and lack of decisive action by the European Central Bank.

The sudden lurch downwards came as Bank of America warned that France’s debt ratio could rocket to 120pc of GDP within five years, unless the EU authorities take radical steps to reflate the region’s economy. Italy’s debt could threaten 150pc even earlier.

The 5-year/5-year forward swap rate monitored closely by traders plummeted beneath 1.77pc on Friday morning as a global growth scare drove European stock markets to a 12-month low.

“This rate is the most important market signal on the planet right now. Everybody is watching the chart, and it has just gone off a cliff,” said Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS.

Bond markets echoed the refrain, with yields on 10-year German Bunds falling to an all-time low of 0.88pc on flight to safety, though the bond rally can also be seen as a bet by traders that the ECB will soon be forced to launch full-blown quantitative easing.

Mario Draghi, the ECB’s president, has adopted the 5Y/5Y rate as the bank’s policy lodestar, used to distill expectations of future inflation. Any fall below 2pc is deemed a risk that expectations are becoming “unhinged” and could lead to a Japanese-style deflation trap.

Mr Roberts said the ECB’s plan for asset purchases - or “QE-lite” - does not yet add up to a coherent strategy. “We don’t think they can boost their balance sheet by more than €165bn over the next two years by buying asset-backed securities (ABS) and covered bonds together, given the haircut effects. The sums are trivial,” he said.

RBS estimates that the inflation rate has already dropped to below 0.1pc in the eurozone if one-off tax rises and fees are stripped out, and this measure may turn negative in October. “Deflation is already knocking on the door. We think it could happen as soon as next month given the latest fall in food prices,” said Mr Roberts.

“We are reaching the end game in Europe. If they don’t launch real QE and start reflation by the end of the year or soon after, the consequences are too awful to contemplate,” he said.

Ruben Segura-Cayuela, from Bank of America, said low inflation has become “the biggest threat to the dynamics of public debt” in the eurozone, warning that debt ratios risk “spiraling up” even at levels of around 0.5pc.

France’s debt will keep rising from 93pc to 102pc of GDP by 2016, even in the best of circumstances. It will reach 117pc under a “lowflation scenario”, and 120pc if there is no further fiscal tightening. Spain’s debt will hit 113pc under similar circumstances. “What worries us is that we are not even stress testing for deflation,” he said.

Bank of America said the ECB may have to take far more radical steps, pledging to violate its own 2pc inflation limit deliberately in order to break out of the vicious circle. “A commitment to keep nominal rates low for a long period does not necessarily work, and alone does not guarantee a recovery. The situation in the euro area might require more forceful action, a nominal anchor that implies the central bank committing to overshoot its inflation target,” it said.

This is almost impossible to imagine, given the political character of the eurozone. Any such move would breach EU treaty law.

It remains far from clear what the ECB intends to do. On Thursday, Mr Draghi vowed “new measures” to head off deflation if necessary, but traders are looking past the rhetoric for hard facts. The ECB’s balance sheet contracted by €10bn last week, falling back to levels of early July. Mr Draghi has yet to flesh out his vague plan to boost it by €1 trillion.

The US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England all set clear timetables, spelling out exactly how many bonds they would buy, and the scale has been much larger in proportion to GDP. The ECB has merely given pledges, and these have since been qualified by the Bank of France, and have been openly attacked by the Bundesbank.

Germany’s five economic institutes - or Wise Men - said the ECB’s asset purchases will add “hardly any” extra stimulus to the real economy and may be unworkable in any case. They said there are not enough private securities that can plausibly be bought, and noted that a previous scheme to buy €40bn of covered bonds had run into the ground.

Analysts are watching German politics just as closely as ECB language. The rise of Germany’s AfD anti-euro party raises the political bar even further for full-fledged QE, and eurosceptics have announced their intention to file cases at the German constitutional court to block asset purchases once they begin.

The court has already ruled that the ECB’s backstop measures for Italian and Spanish debt (OMT) “manifestly violate” the EU Treaties and are probably “Ultra Vires”, which prohibits the Bundesbank from taking part. Pending cases on QE would raise questions over whether the Bundesbank might have to step aside on asset purchases.

The current circumstances are very different from July 2012, when Mr Draghi had the full political backing of the German finance ministry for his OMT rescue plans. This time he must battle critics across the whole political spectrum in Germany.

Giulio Mazzolini and Ashoka Mody, from the Bruegel think tank in Brussels, said the eurozone seems to be tipping into a “debt-deflation cycle” as rising debt and deflation feed off each other, yet the authorities remain paralyzed and still refuse to face up the gravity of the threat. “Even now, ECB officials regard deflation to be unlikely,” they said.

 ___________________________

In reading this article, ladies and gentlemen, socialism has caused the world's banking infrastructure to reach the brink of total collapse and bankruptcy. Purchasing bonds or further securities will do no good at all because there is not enough money to do so per this article. The Federal Reserve, like with the Bank of England, will be printing off more worthless money which will have an even more disastrous effect than simply deflation: hyperinflation. Why hyperinflation? Consider that prices will adjust accordingly as it will take more money to purchase a unit of a product or service while the exchanges do not provide for adequate adjustments to real wages, and you understand why Obama is attempting to sell nationally a massive increase in minimum wage. To place any barrier on the natural rate of wages is not only dangerous, but creates barriers for business and therefore, total economic growth. I need not reference you to the Seattle catastrophe as now their $15/hour minimum wage is driving small businesses out of business and causing large companies and corporations to layoff or cut employees' hours. Once you include Obamacare's mandate for coverage at 30 hours per week, no one will be working beyond 29 hours except for certain exceptions. 

What is Janet Yellen, the most unqualified and clueless Fed Chairperson in history, doing on this matter? Well, let me provide you the details from several resources:

SEPTEMBER 2014 US INFLATION

OCTOBER 22, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

U.S. consumer prices turned higher in September after dipping in August for the first time in 16 months. Shelter, medical care and food prices led gains while falling energy expenses helped in keeping overall consumer prices in check.

The Consumer Price Index, rose 0.1% in September after decreasing 0.2% in the prior month, according to a U.S. Labor Department report released Wednesday, October 22, 2014.

Food prices rose for a ninth straight month, up 0.3% compared to 0.2% previously. Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs continued to drive-up grocery bills, rising 0.7% after a 1.5% increase in August. Notably, beef and veal climbed 2% in September and have advanced 16.7% since January.

Stripping food and energy expenses, the so-called core inflation rate also rose 0.1% in September after being little changed in August.

12-Month Change in Consumer Prices

In the September 2013 to September 2014 period, the inflation rate rose 1.7%, the same as in August. Core consumer prices also rose 1.7%, which was the same as the prior month.

Below are major consumer prices by category and their month-over-month changes. The final column offers year-over-year changes. The prices for these items are gathered and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) each month.

US Inflation: Mar – Sept 2014 Consumer Prices (%)

	Mar 2014	Apr 2014	May 2014	June 2014	July 2014	Aug 2014	Sept 2014	12 Month
All items	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.1	-0.2	0.1	1.7
Food	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.1	0.4	0.2	0.3	3.0
Food at home	0.5	0.4	0.7	.0	0.4	0.2	0.3	3.2
Food away from home	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3	2.7
Energy	-0.1	0.3	0.9	1.6	-0.3	-2.6	-0.7	-0.6
Energy commodities	-2.0	1.9	0.6	3.0	-0.3	-3.9	-1.1	-3.3
Gasoline (all types)	-1.7	2.3	0.7	3.3	-0.3	-4.1	-1.0	-3.6
Fuel oil	-2.9	-3.0	-1.4	-1.7	-0.7	-1.2	-2.1	-3.2
Energy services	2.6	-1.9	1.4	-0.4	-0.4	-0.6	-0.2	3.5
Electricity	1.1	-2.6	2.3	0.2	-0.3	0.1	-0.7	2.8
Utility (piped) gas service	7.5	0.3	-1.7	-2.6	-0.4	-2.8	1.6	5.8
All items less food, energy	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.1	.0	0.1	1.7
Commodities less food, energy	.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	.0	-0.1	.0	-0.3
New vehicles	.0	0.3	0.2	-0.3	0.3	0.2	.0	0.3
Used cars and trucks	0.4	0.5	-0.1	-0.4	-0.3	-0.3	-0.1	-0.4
Apparel	0.3	.0	0.3	0.5	0.2	-0.2	.0	0.5
Medical care	-0.3	0.3	0.5	0.7	0.3	-0.1	0.5	2.9
Services less energy	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.1	.0	0.2	2.4
Shelter	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3	3.0
Transportation	0.2	0.7	1.0	0.1	-0.7	-0.6	0.1	1.4
Medical care	0.3	0.3	0.3	.0	0.1	.0	0.1	1.7

The following paragraphs offer the summary report of the Consumer Price Index by the Labor Department’s BLS as published on Wednesday, October 22, 2014.

Summary of Consumer Prices for September 2014

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.1% in September on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 1.7% before seasonal adjustment.

Increases in shelter and food indexes outweighed declines in energy indexes to result in the seasonally adjusted all items increase. The food index rose 0.3% as five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased. The energy index declined 0.7% as the indexes for gasoline, electricity, and fuel oil all fell.

The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.1% in September. Along with the shelter index, the index for medical care increased, and the indexes for alcoholic beverages and for personal care advanced slightly. Several indexes were unchanged, and the indexes for airline fares and for used cars and trucks declined in September.

The all items index increased 1.7% over the last 12 months, the same increase as for the 12 months ending August. The 12-month change in the index for all items less food and energy also remained at 1.7%. The 12-month change in the shelter index has been gradually increasing, and reached 3.0% for the first time since January 2008. The food index has also risen 3.0% over the span, while the energy index has declined 0.6%.

Food Inflation

The food index rose 0.3% in September after increasing 0.2% in August. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs continued to rise, increasing 0.7% after a 1.5% increase in August. The index for beef and veal rose 2.0% in September and has now risen 16.7% since January. The index for dairy and related products increased 0.5%, its tenth increase in the last 11 months.

The index for other food at home also rose 0.5% in September, with the index for sugar and sweets increasing 1.6%. The index for nonalcoholic beverages, which declined 0.2% in August, rose 0.2% in September. The fruits and vegetables index also turned up in September, rising 0.1% after declining in August. The index for fresh fruits rose 1.3%, while the fresh vegetables index fell 1.1%. The cereals and bakery products index declined in September, falling 0.4%. The food at home index has risen 3.2% over the past year.

The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs has increased 9.4% over that span, with the index for beef and veal up 17.8% and the pork index up 11.4%. The fruits and vegetables index has increased only 0.9% over the last 12 months, the index for nonalcoholic beverages has risen 0.2%, and the cereals and bakery products index has declined slightly, falling 0.1%. The index for food away from home rose 0.3% in September and has increased 2.7% over the last 12 months.

Energy Inflation

The energy index fell 0.7% in September, its third consecutive decline. The gasoline index, which declined 4.1% in August, fell 1.0% in September. (Before seasonal adjustment, gasoline prices fell 2.1% in September.) The electricity index also declined in September, falling 0.7% after rising slightly in August. The fuel oil index decreased as well, falling 2.1%.

In contrast to these declines, the index for natural gas turned up in September, rising 1.6% after falling in each of the 4 previous months. The energy index has fallen 0.6% over the last 12 months, with its components mixed. The natural gas index has risen 5.8% over the span and the electricity index has increased 2.8%. However, the gasoline index has declined 3.6% and the fuel oil index has fallen 3.2%.

All items less food and energy

The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.1% in September after being unchanged in August. The shelter index accounted for most of the increase, rising 0.3% in September. The rent index increased 0.3% and the index for owners’ equivalent rent rose 0.2%. The medical care index also advanced in September, increasing 0.2%.

Within the medical care component, the index for medical care commodities rose 0.5%, with the nonprescription drugs index increasing 1.5%. The index for medical care services rose 0.1%, with the index for hospital services advancing 0.3%. The indexes for alcoholic beverages and for personal care both rose 0.1% in September. Several indexes were unchanged in September, including those for new vehicles, apparel, recreation, and household furnishings and operations. The index for airline fares continued to decline in September, falling 0.5%, and the indexes for used cars and trucks and for tobacco both fell 0.1%.

The index for all items less food and energy has risen 1.7% over the last 12 months. The shelter index has risen 3.0% and the index for medical care has increased 2.0%. Indexes that have declined over the last year include airline fares (down 3.0%), household furnishings and operations (down 1.4%) and used cars and trucks (down 0.4%).

Not seasonally adjusted CPI measures

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 1.7% over the last 12 months to an index level of 238.031 (1982-84=100). For the month, the index rose 0.1% prior to seasonal adjustment.

The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) increased 1.6% over the last 12 months to an index level of 234.170 (1982-84=100). For the month, the index rose 0.1% prior to seasonal adjustment.

The Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) increased 1.5% over the last 12 months. For the month, the index rose 0.1% on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Please note that the indexes for the post-2012 period are subject to revision.

Next CPI Release

The CPI release date for October 2014 is Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

____________________

To bribe the general public come election time, the federal government will ensure that gas prices plummet, which they are. But what few people grasp is how the costs for food and shelter are spiking dramatically to where people are not able to afford what they once could. Thus the initiative propped by Michael... er, Michelle Obama to install guidance devices in grocery stores to tell consumers what she wants them to purchase may not be so coincidental considering these prices continue skyrocketing.

With regards to interest rates? Those are plummeting dangerously close to Eurozone levels.

United States Fed Funds Rate 1971-2014 

The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last recorded at 0.25 percent. Interest Rate in the United States averaged 6.04 Percent from 1971 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 20.00 Percent in March of 1980 and a record low of 0.25 Percent in December of 2008. Interest Rate in the United States is reported by the Federal Reserve.

And of course, due to deflation, concerns arise over a strong dollar.

Fed Raises Concerns Over Strong Dollar

Minutes from Federal Reserve’s last meeting showed policymakers are concerned about recent dollar appreciation and the effects it might have on growth and inflation. FOMC minutes also highlighted divergences among the Committee’s language and the risk of a market misunderstanding. 

Extracts from the minutes of Federal Open Market Committee meeting held in September:

During participants' discussion of prospects for economic activity abroad, they commented on a number of uncertainties and risks attending the outlook. Over the intermeeting period, the foreign exchange value of the dollar had appreciated, particularly against the euro, the yen, and the pound sterling. Some participants expressed concern that the persistent shortfall of economic growth and inflation in the euro area could lead to a further appreciation of the dollar and have adverse effects on the U.S. external sector. Several participants added that slower economic growth in China or Japan or unanticipated events in the Middle East or Ukraine might pose a similar risk. At the same time, a couple of participants pointed out that the appreciation of the dollar might also tend to slow the gradual increase in inflation toward the FOMC's 2 percent goal.

In their discussion of the appropriate path for monetary policy over the medium term, meeting participants agreed that the timing of the first increase in the federal funds rate and the appropriate path of the policy rate thereafter would depend on incoming economic data and their implications for the outlook. That said, several participants thought that the current forward guidance regarding the federal funds rate suggested a longer period before liftoff, and perhaps also a more gradual increase in the federal funds rate thereafter, than they believed was likely to be appropriate given economic and financial conditions. In addition, the concern was raised that the reference to "considerable time" in the current forward guidance could be misunderstood as a commitment rather than as data dependent. However, it was noted that the current formulation of the Committee's forward guidance clearly indicated that the Committee's policy decisions were conditional on its ongoing assessment of realized and expected progress toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation, and that its assessment reflected its review of a broad array of economic indicators. It was emphasized that the current forward guidance for the federal funds rate was data dependent and did not indicate that the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate would occur mechanically after some fixed calendar interval following the completion of the current asset purchase program. If employment and inflation converged more rapidly toward the Committee's goals than currently expected, the date of liftoff could be earlier, and subsequent increases in the federal funds rate target more rapid, than participants currently anticipated. Conversely, if employment and inflation returned toward the Committee's objectives more slowly than currently anticipated, the date of liftoff for the federal funds rate could be later, and future federal funds rate target increases could be more gradual. In addition, some participants saw the current forward guidance as appropriate in light of risk-management considerations, which suggested that it would be prudent to err on the side of patience while awaiting further evidence of sustained progress toward the Committee's goals. In their view, the costs of downside shocks to the economy would be larger than those of upside shocks because, in current circumstances, it would be less problematic to remove accommodation quickly, if doing so becomes necessary, than to add accommodation. A number of participants also noted that changes to the forward guidance might be misinterpreted as a signal of a fundamental shift in the stance of policy that could result in an unintended tightening of financial conditions.

Federal Reserve | Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com 

10/8/2014 7:28:06 PM 

 ____________________

Our rate of interest is again a miniscule 0.25%, and do note that any further deductions will result eventually in an eventual negative rate. What we are preparing to witness, ladies and gentlemen, is the final crash of not only global stock exchanges which continue to plummet as well due to the return of financial and tech bubbles, but the failure to haul under control loan regulations to the point of exacerbating the Clinton era standards which led to the financial collapse of 2007-08. In discussing this, I will refer you to Bloomberg Businessweek:

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far

Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

In writing this blog entry, I’m following the lead of Joseph R. Mason, who is a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics. Here is a link to a piece that he wrote on Feb. 26.

The Clinton-era document that Mason cites—“The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”—was hiding in plain sight

on the website of the Department of Housing & Urban Development until last year, when according to Mason it was removed (probably because the housing bust made it seem embarrassing to the department). Mason credits Joshua Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co. with saving a copy of it before it was expunged.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.

The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

_______________________

When it comes to your earnings and the capacity to acquire prime rate mortgages or loans regardless if you qualify, my advice to you is that friends never let friends vote for Democrats. Socialists really do make a mess of the nation's finances.

 ***

Global Debt in the Face of Deflation and Negative Interest Rates: The End of Political Economies

In misattributing the popular quote not from Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." When governments pay down deficits, most of it involves chipping away at massive interest totals adjusted to inflation. In nearly six complete years of the Obama presidency, our deficit has increased by some $8 trillion dollars. Today, you may extrapolate that figure to understand that our total deficit is a higher percentage than what we are taxed, or in other words, our economy has contracted because expenditures as a total now live on credit. I refer to this as casino economics, again. The boom/bust cycle for capitalist economies like ours will be our undoing as we continue to spend what do not have. 

But America is not at all the worst off regarding national debt. Japan's total is more than double our percentage. Below is the information provided by Economics Help. The problem now will be placed for most of you into the proper perspective.

List of National Debt by Country

by Tejvan Pettinger on October 1, 2014 in economics

• This is a list of the gross National debt that countries have. National debt refers to the amount of total government debt a country has. This is also referred to as ‘public sector debt’.
• It is compiled using data from the IMF, Eurostat and CIA agencies.
• Note: National debt is different to ‘External debt‘ – External debt includes all the debts a country (both private and public sector) owe to foreigners.
• Note: You may see slightly different figures for government debt levels, depending how it is measured. For example,
  •  In Q1 2014 – Net US debt was 74% (debt held by private sector). Gross US debt was 103% (this includes intra-governmental holdings
• Updated October, 2014

List of National Debt by Country

General gross government debt. Mostly using CIA from April 2014.

Debt levels for 2013.

Pos	Country	Debt % of GDP	Read more
1	Japan	226	Japan debt
2	Zimbabwe	202.4
3	Greece	175
4	Italy	133	Italy debt
5	Iceland	130.5
6	Portugal	127.8	Portugal debt
7	Ireland	124.2	Ireland debt
8	Jamaica	123
9	Lebanon	120
10	Cyprus	113
11	Sudan	111
12	Grenada	110
13	Singapore	105.5
14	Eritrea	104.7
15	Belgium	102.4
16	Puerto Rico	96.5
17	Spain	93.7	Spain debt
18	France	93.4	France debt
19	Egypt	92.2
20	United Kingdom	91.1	UK debt
21	Barbados	90.5
22	Antigua and Barbuda	89
23	Canada	86.3	Canada debt
24	Cabo Verde	86.2
25	Saint Kitts and Nevis	83
26	Germany	79.9
27	Hungary	79.8
28	Jordan	79.1
29	Sri Lanka	78.4
30	Saint Lucia	77
31	Morocco	76.9
32	Austria	75.7
33	Malta	75
34	Belize	75
35	Netherlands	74.3
36	United States	71.8	US debt
37	Slovenia	71.7
38	Albania	70.5
39	Dominica	70
40	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	68
41	Israel	67
42	Aruba	67
43	Croatia	66.2
44	Sao Tome and Principe	65.5
45	Uruguay	62
46	El Salvador	62
47	Serbia	61.2
48	Bahrain	61.2
49	Guyana	59.9
50	Brazil	59.2
51	Syria	58.9
52	Mauritius	68
53	Finland	56.5
54	Fiji	56.2
55	Slovakia	55.5
56	Costa Rica	55
57	Pakistan	54.6
58	Malaysia	54.6
59	Kenya	53.5
60	Ghana	53.1
61	Montenegro	52.1
62	Seychelles	51.8
63	India	51.8
64	Tunisia	51
65	Malawi	50.8
66	Nicaragua	50
67	Ethiopia	50
68	Philippines	50
69	Czech Republic	48.8
70	Vietnam	48.2
71	Poland	48.2
72	Burundi	47.6
73	Yemen	47.1
74	Dominican Republic	47
75	Denmark	47
76	Mozambique	46.7
77	Laos	46.3
78	Bosnia and Herzegovina	45.9
79	Thailand	45.9
80	Argentina	45.8
81	South Africa	45.4
82	Cote d’Ivoire	45.2
83	Tanzania	42.7
84	United Arab Emirates	41.7
85	Sweden	41.5
86	Andorra	41.1
87	Honduras	40.6
88	Ukraine	40.6
89	Lithuania	40.2
90	Panama	39.8
91	Colombia	39.6
92	Latvia	39.2
93	Bhutan	38.9
94	Taiwan	38.9
95	Djibouti	38.6
96	Romania	38.6
97	Senegal	38.4
98	New Zealand	38.4
99	Armenia	37.7
100	Mexico	37.7
101	Trinidad and Tobago	37.1
102	Turkey	36.6
103	Georgia	36.3
104	Bolivia	36
105	Cuba	35.9
106	Korea, South	35.8
107	Hong Kong	35.6
108	Macedonia	34.3
109	Venezuela	34.2
110	Switzerland	33.8
111	Curacao	33.2
112	Australia	32.6
113	Congo, Republic of the	32.1
114	Zambia	31.8
115	Belarus	31.5
116	Sierra Leone	31.1
117	Guatemala	31
118	Bangladesh	30.9
119	Uganda	30.7
120	Qatar	30.6
121	Chad	30.5
122	Mali	30.5
123	Norway	30.1
124	Benin	29.7
125	Papua New Guinea	28.1
126	Nepal	28
127	Namibia	27.2
128	San Marino	25.8
129	Indonesia	24
130	Rwanda	23.5
131	Ecuador	23.2
132	Gabon	23
133	Luxembourg	22.9
134	China	22.4
135	Anguilla	20
136	Nigeria	19.3
137	Iran	18.7
138	Bulgaria	18.4
139	Botswana	17.9
140	Cameroon	16.7
141	Moldova	16.6
142	Paraguay	15.7
143	Kazakhstan	15.6
144	Peru	14.9
145	Angola	14.7
146	Chile	13.9
147	Algeria	13.2
148	Saudi Arabia	12.2
149	Equatorial Guinea	11
150	Kosovo	9
151	Russia	7.9
152	Uzbekistan	7.6
153	Azerbaijan	7.5
154	Gibraltar	7.5
155	Tajikistan	6.5
156	Kuwait	6.4
157	Estonia	6
158	Wallis and Futuna	5.6
159	Libya	4.8
160	Oman	4.4
161	Liberia	3.3

Sources:

• CIA factbook – National debt by Country
• Public debt, International Monetary Fund, April 2012
• Eurostat pdf.

Some selected levels of Public Sector debt in different countries:

• Canada National debt gross debt 85% of GDP (2012) – In Canada there are two measures. Net federal debt involves only central government. (38% of GDP).
• UK National Debt 67% of GDP (UK) See (UK national debt for more details.)

Further Reading

• Why is Japan able to borrow so much at low interest rates?
• How much can a government borrow?
• Euro Debt crisis explained
• National Debt, printing money and inflation

Annual Government Borrowing

An important factor is not just cumulative national debt, but, the annual budget deficit. This annual deficit determines the rate of deterioration in the public sector debt.

The budget deficit is the total amount the government needs to borrow in a particular year.

Budget Deficits by Country in 2012

This shows that the US has one of the highest budget deficits in the world.

External Debt

A different statistics is external debt, this the amount of debt a country owes to other countries. It includes both the private and public sector debt. See: list of external debt by country

Credit Ratings

• List of countries with highest credit rating (AAA)

Readers Question

• How can debt increase, but debt to GDP fall?
• History of US Debt / GDP
• What is difference between debt and deficit?

___________________

The private sector is charged with 74% of the private debt. Our total debt in the U.S. is now at 103%, with 29% comprising of public expenditures, in which -3% figure indicates how our government is hemorrhaging money, or spending beyond what the Treasury possesses. This is when our congressmen and senators determine to raise the debt ceiling, which only leads to more spending and increased taxation through the backdoor.

How much of our tax dollars is distributed and spent by our various bureaucracies, and which one has accumulated most of our public debt? That answer is again, ladies and gentlemen, would be the Federal Reserve, the source for all U.S. socialism and all the wars we have fought in the past century. But first, I want to provide you with the breakdown of where America's tax revenue goes and how it is generated, per U.S. Government Revenue: 

Note where our largest piece of the pie is by a large percentage: Income taxes. We are paying 40% of the American labor force's total earnings into the Treasury, thereby stifling the means for which we might be capable of paying more through either a lower income tax figure or the total abolition of all direct geometrically measure taxed wages. The more our government spends, the more we are taxed; likewise, the more we are taxed, the more government feels free to spend and spend freely. When one checkbook runs out, our government believes through more and heavier confiscatory taxation, it can purchase a new one and just spend frivolously until the next debt ceiling crisis threatens to bankrupt our Treasury and further lower our credit rating. 

We see the means for which the federal government acquires tax revenue, and it is our earned income which is being hit the hardest and repressively. I want to share also how it trickles down to our state and local levels of government, and why each level needs to focus more on creating jobs independently so that none is so beholden to the federal government as to subsist solely upon its dispensations or, worse still, fall prey to the sharks through political blackmail and extortion: 

And now the statistical figures to corroborate with the color coded map:

State	Total IRS Tax Collected	Business Income Tax	Individual Income & Employment Tax
	All states combined	$2,855.1	$312.0	$2,462.2
	California	$334.4	$35.6	$291.1
	Texas	$249.9	$33.9	$195.5
	New York	$231.9	$25.4	$201.7
	Florida	$141.2	$8.2	$129.9
	Illinois	$137.1	$16.2	$117.3
	New Jersey	$128.1	$19.1	$105.7
	Ohio	$124.7	$12.1	$108.5
	Pennsylvania	$120.4	$11.9	$105.3
	Minnesota	$90.7	$18.1	$71.6
	Massachusetts	$90.5	$6.0	$82.8
	Georgia	$74.3	$10.4	$60.6
	Virginia	$71.4	$10.5	$60.2
	Michigan	$68.9	$4.9	$63.3
	North Carolina	$66.1	$7.0	$58.7
	Washington	$59.9	$4.2	$54.5
	Maryland	$56.3	$2.7	$53.1
	Missouri	$54.4	$6.8	$46.2
	Tennessee	$53.9	$5.5	$47.0
	Connecticut	$53.7	$6.9	$45.5
	Indiana	$51.0	$3.6	$46.4
	Colorado	$46.5	$5.1	$40.3
	Wisconsin	$46.4	$5.0	$40.7
	Louisiana	$40.2	$1.5	$38.1
	Arizona	$36.8	$2.9	$32.2
	Oklahoma	$30.1	$3.6	$22.9
	Arkansas	$28.8	$7.5	$20.6
	Kentucky	$27.7	$2.3	$25.0
	Oregon	$25.7	$1.7	$23.7
	Kansas	$24.7	$2.7	$20.4
	District of Columbia	$24.5	$1.6	$22.8
	Nebraska	$23.8	$7.7	$15.9
	Alabama	$23.8	$1.1	$22.3
	Iowa	$21.2	$1.3	$19.6
	South Carolina	$20.4	$1.2	$18.9
	Delaware	$20.1	$5.8	$13.9
	Utah	$17.7	$1.5	$15.5
	Nevada	$15.9	$0.9	$14.7
	Rhode Island	$13.0	$3.3	$9.7
	Mississippi	$10.4	$0.5	$9.8
	New Hampshire	$10.0	$0.3	$9.4
	Idaho	$8.7	$0.5	$8.1
	New Mexico	$8.5	$0.2	$8.1
	North Dakota	$7.6	$0.9	$6.6
	Hawaii	$7.1	$0.4	$6.5
	West Virginia	$6.8	$0.4	$6.3
	Maine	$6.7	$0.3	$6.2
	South Dakota	$6.3	$0.2	$6.0
	Wyoming	$5.3	$0.1	$5.0
	Alaska	$5.3	$0.2	$5.1
	Montana	$5.0	$0.2	$4.7
	Vermont	$4.0	$0.3	$3.7
Notes: actual guesstimated1 estimated Data Source: IRS SOI Tax Stats

And there you are, and as expected, the larger states tend to rise highest at the top for tax revenue, which they should. 

Our federal government consumes more than 80% of all income tax revenue and is pulling in record levels of our earnings, and yet it is losing money because it now has run dry by over 3%. The policy of tax and spend has never worked, but rather nearly bankrupted our economy and our government on numerous occasions.

Now, how much further can this be broken down? Fear not, for those figures will be below too:

The most disturbing graph is the one reading ad valorem, which entails ownership of property at face value. Once one realizes that America is a property owning democracy, the idea of more taxation entails that all tiers of government can regulate what transpires on our land, in our homes and businesses, to the point where after enough is taxed, these crucial icons of personal wealth and collateral can for all intents and purposes be nationalized or absorbed by any level of our government. And as all taxation is in some manner confiscatory by nature, who we vote for in choosing liberty or a codependent lifestyle will ultimately determine how much we own, what we earn in our wallet and eventually, how much the government owns us, nor the other way around. It therefore stands to reason that as government dictates the standards of any living wage - for example in the U.S., the disputes over an hourly minimum wage - the greater the likelihood that the freedom to excel, to succeed and to be an individual of merit so far as our talents may take us will eventually be collectivized and our dreams for fame, fortune and capacity to expand our businesses large or small to create new jobs and economic growth will be stifle. Today, Barack Obama has almost succeeded in his quest to unify the classes by narrowing the gaps... only so far as the bottom 90% are poorer than ever before while his supporters, the crony capitalists, are now far wealthier as a economic oligarchy than ever before in our history. Most profited off Wall Street or the technology and entertainment merits which are heavily subsidized and their products subsidized and granted corporate welfare. It therefore explains further why the Obama economic lie is only based upon a casino economic model. 

___________________________

We read often how China owns the U.S. due to our enormous trade deficit due to them. What people do not know en masse is how the Federal Reserve actually owns the largest percent of all national deficits, some 64% higher than the rising superpower of the orient. For details, read CNSNews to understand how and why: 

Fed Owns 64% More U.S. Government Debt Than China

January 16, 2014 - 12:11 PM

---

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey RSS

(CNSNews.com) - The Federal Reserve owned 64 percent more U.S. government debt than entities in the People’s Republic of China did as of the end of November, which is the latest period for which the Treasury has reported on the foreign ownership of U.S. government debt.

The $1,316,700,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities that entities in mainland China owned as of the end of November set a record for China, but it was still $846,966,000,000 less than the $2,163,666,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities the Federal Reserve owned as of Nov. 27, according the Fed’s weekly balance sheets.

As of January 9, the latest day on the Fed’s last weekly accounting sheet, the Fed had increased its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities to $2,212,924,000,000.

The Fed also owns $1,490,167,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae.

At the end of January 2009, the month President Barack Obama was first inaugurated, mainland China owned $744.2 billion in U.S. government debt and the Fed owned $475.129 billion.

When Sen. Richard Shelby (R.-Ala.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, took to the Senate floor last week to explain why he had voted against the confirmation of Janet Yellen as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, he made a point of the fact that the Fed—not the People’s Republic of China—is the world’s largest owner of U.S. government debt.

“In fact, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet shows the Federal Reserve itself is by far the largest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds,” said Shelby.

“Many hold the misconception in this country that China is the world’s largest owner of U.S. debt. That is not true,” said Shelby.  “In fact, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet shows the Federal Reserve itself is by far the largest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. With $2.2 trillion in Treasury debt, the Fed holds nearly $900 billion more than China does, if you can think in those terms. The Fed holds more in Treasury bonds than do China and most of the Eurozone combined.

“The rate of acceleration with which the Federal Reserve is purchasing Treasuries should be alarming to all Americans,” said Shelby.

Shelby described the Fed’s massive purchases of U.S. government debt as a “backdoor stimulus program”—one that may have unpredictable consequences.

“Let’s call this what it is: a backdoor stimulus program through monetary policy,” said Shelby. “Very complicated, yes, but very important. It dwarfs even the fiscal stimulus package President Obama rammed through Congress during his first days in office about 5 years ago. President Obama’s fiscal stimulus package totaled $787 billion—a lot of money—and I have just described the Fed’s monetary stimulus package as nearly four times larger and growing.”

Shelby argued that, despite currently low inflation, the Fed’s policy could lead to prices increasing “uncontrollably.”

“This highly unconventional monetary policy poses huge risks to our economy—namely, inflation in the future and a devaluation of our currency,” said Shelby.

“I realize that current inflation expectations are relatively low and anchored,” he said. “However, again we are in completely uncharted territory. Should inflation expectations become unglued, prices could increase uncontrollably. There is simply no playbook that I am aware of on how to deal with such a situation successfully.”

Shelby additionally observed that although the Fed has announced it is going to reduce the size of its ongoing debt purchases, it is nonetheless going to continue making them.

“Yes, I also understand that the Fed has recently announced it will modestly scale back its so-called quantitative easing program,” said Shelby. The Fed will still purchase tens of billions of dollars of securities each month.

“Make no mistake—the Fed’s balance sheet will continue to expand rapidly,” he said.

“How long will this continue? We don’t know,” he said. “How large will the Fed’s balance sheet ultimately grow? We don’t know. Will the Fed be able to contain inflation if it does begin to rise? Again, we don’t know. And when will the Federal Reserve actually begin to unwind the balance sheet—which will be tricky? Again, we don’t know. How exactly does the Federal Reserve plan to unwind the balance sheet? Again, we don’t know, and I don’t believe they know.”

Shelby said that even in-coming Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, who will take over for Bernanke on February 1, could not answer these questions for him.

“I raise these points because I met with Dr. Yellen in my office and attended her confirmation hearing in the Banking Committee. I received no meaningful answers to any of those questions, only the usual platitudes that so often mark such meetings.” 

___________________________

The bane of America's financial collapse were the government-owned corporation Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae. As three state-controlled banks are losing our taxed-subsidized funding to the tune of $1,490,167,000,000 - the three as a trio comprising more than the $1,316,700,000,000 owned by Beijing - America should be more concerned about defaulting not to the Chinese government, but to the American people on whose taxed wages our very lives and capacity to subsist and to prosper have be mortgage, literally.

Reaganomics Debt vs. the Obama Debacle: Fact and Fiction and Why Reagan Actually Cut Federal Spending

In the history of the United States, perhaps no other period of our economic progression could one point to both a greater conundrum and still an even threatening crises than the phenomenon of stagflation. Stagflation can be summarized as rising unemployment and decreases in real wages coupled with high inflation that destroys entire nations as money becomes worthless while the capacity to work and earn a living disappears. This period can best be exemplified by long gas lines where fuel was rationed due to OPEC's embargoes on global oil supply, Nixon's failed policies of price fixtures and Jimmy Carter's infamous Crisis of Confidence speech where like today with Barack Obama, he blamed America for government's failures. 

As Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency in 1980, he pledged that business as usual in Washington would change; that, it did. Confiscatory tax rates in the neighborhood of a quarter of the wealthiest Americans' income and a total at the bottom as high as today's top wage earners had robbed the people its ability to live comfortably even as Jimmy Carter demanded that more sacrifices be made in the people's capacity to subsist and in creature comforts. Manufacturing had all but died due to labor union strikes closing factories in Detroit and the Rust Belt. President Reagan pledged to cut taxes and to drive down inflation. What he did was cut the top rate to 28.5% by 1988 while inflation decreased plummeted from 13.5% to 4.3% after a brief spike following the stock market crash of 1987. Through index interest rates and raising those totals to near record-high levels briefly, this miracle was made possible, but at the cost of an 82% increase in deficit spending as a result of Congress failing to grant his demand for a balanced budget amendment and the scourge of a decade of unprecedented interest rates inflating the actual debt while he cut government expenditures and growth. 

The following graphs will explain how the Reagan deficits skyrocketed not because he increased enormously the rates of public expenditures, but due to his driving down inflation by spiking interest rates which compounded what was to be paid down, per U.S. Government Expenditures:

The graph can be explained in real terms as follows:

The US federal government differentiates between Gross Debt issued by the US Treasury and Net Debt held by the public. The numbers on Gross Debt are published by the US Treasury here.

Numbers on various categories of federal debt, including Gross Debt, debt held by federal government accounts, debt held by the public, and debt held by the Federal Reserve System, are published every year by the Office of Management and Budget in the Federal Budget in the Historical Tables as Table 7.1 — Federal Debt at the End of the Year. The table starts in 1940. You can find the latest Table 7.1 in here.

The chart above shows three categories of federal debt.

1. Monetized debt (blue), i.e., federal debt bought by the Federal Reserve System

2. Debt held by the federal government (red) e.g., as IOUs for Social Security

3. Other debt (green), i.e., debt in public hands, including foreign governments.

____________________

What you are reading in this graph is during the Reagan presidency, the phenomenon behind the unsustainable model of social welfare subsidies, where because of rising interest rates attempting to drive down inflation, that figure skyrocketed in terms of what the federal government purchased in securities and IOUs. The green, however, indicates how the manufacturing sector had been decimated by labor unions striking and driving stakes into the hearts of our traditional mass employers' capacity to operate, causing factories to close and engage in corporate flight, and more money spent on imports. 

The most troublesome issue of the total public debt during the Reagan presidency and why it rose by a staggering 82% was the enormous rate of interest that had accrued. The following table explains more:

As the Federal Reserve was established in 1916, one scant year prior to the first world war, interest rates have comprised of the largest percent of federal debt. What increased so terribly was not actual government expenditures, but the rates of interest upon which securities and bonds were purchased by the federal government. But under the Obama model that has raised deficits to a total higher than composite GDP, it grows more pernicious:

The real risk from government debt is the burden of interest payments. Experts say that when interest payments reach about 12% of GDP then a government will likely default on its debt. Chart 4.05 shows that the US is a long way from that risk. The peak period for government interest payments, including federal, state, and local governments, was in the 1980s, when interest rates were still high after the inflationary 1970s. Of course, the numbers don’t show the burden of interest payments from Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they don't show what the outlays for interest will be after the end of the current “quantitative easing” and “zero interest rate policy.”

A century of federal monetizing through the Federal Reserve has resulted in America's future to become unavoidably mortgaged. Socialism never existed in full until Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, and as that failed miserably and devolved the economy lower by 1938 than it had been upon his ascension to the presidency, the focus changed to foreign policy, creating the phenomenon of the welfare/warfare paradigm, or when the economy fully tanks and destructive wars are then waged as troops are promised to be taken care of as a bribe to serve.

Interest rates, again, are now 0.25%, among the lowest totals in U.S. history. In Europe, as previously stated, sub-zero figures have resulted in banks required to pay loan applicants, and still there is the issue of quantitative easing, which the U.S. has continued. Under President Obama, he has spent with a virtual blank check. And while Ronald Reagan struggled just to pay down the interest rates, Obama's debts are by comparison, pure money:

What did you learn? Public debt increases under Reaganomics were lower than under his successors. While the trend rose, it remained relatively stable until the Obama presidency. But under Obama, the rate of interest decreased, meaning real debt through the American taxpayers skyrocketed, but deflated in interest and inflation. For Obama, the federal government prospered by cutting down the middle man - the Federal Reserve's driving down of interest rates and flooding the market with paper money through quantitative easing. The tradeoff, however, was a dollar that is strong in terms of purchasing power, but buys less per unit as debt skyrockets.

The trend of the deflation of the coinage can be directly tied to rising deficits. Once you read of 2013's figure, what is real GDP is now less than its nominal figure, courtesy of Measuring Worth.com:

What Was the U.S. GDP Then?

Download the Results in a Spreadsheet Format

Year	Nominal GDP (million of Dollars)	Real GDP (millions of 2009 dollars)	GDP Deflator (index 2009=100)	Population (in thousands)	Nominal GDP per capita (current dollars)	Real GDP per capita (year 2009 dollars)
	Plot Series Plot Log of Series	Plot Series Plot Log of Series	Plot Series Plot Log of Series	Plot Series Plot Log of Series	Plot Series Plot Log of Series	Plot Series Plot Log of Series
1900	20,766	456,861	4.55	76,094.00	272.90	6,003.9
1901	22,484	481,111	4.67	77,584.00	289.80	6,201.2
1902	24,294	505,823	4.80	79,163.00	306.89	6,389.6
1903	26,180	520,584	5.03	80,632.00	324.69	6,456.3
1904	25,928	502,152	5.16	82,166.00	315.56	6,111.4
1905	29,066	558,810	5.20	83,822.00	346.76	6,666.6
1906	31,336	581,661	5.39	85,450.00	366.72	6,807.0
1907	34,178	596,607	5.73	87,008.00	392.81	6,856.9
1908	30,423	532,105	5.72	88,710.00	342.95	5,998.3
1909	32,540	570,565	5.70	90,490.00	359.60	6,305.3
1910	33,746	576,709	5.85	92,407.00	365.19	6,241.0
1911	34,675	595,394	5.82	93,863.00	369.42	6,343.2
1912	37,745	623,289	6.06	95,335.00	395.92	6,537.9
1913	39,517	647,893	6.10	97,225.00	406.45	6,663.9
1914	36,831	598,287	6.16	99,111.00	371.61	6,036.5
1915	39,048	614,598	6.35	100,546.00	388.36	6,112.6
1916	50,117	699,822	7.16	101,961.00	491.53	6,863.6
1917	60,278	682,512	8.83	103,414.00	582.88	6,599.8
1918	76,567	744,069	10.29	104,550.00	732.35	7,116.9
1919	79,090	750,039	10.54	105,063.00	752.78	7,138.9
1920	89,246	743,030	12.01	106,461.00	838.30	6,979.4
1921	74,314	725,995	10.24	108,538.00	684.68	6,688.9
1922	74,140	766,310	9.67	110,049.00	673.70	6,963.4
1923	86,238	867,213	9.94	111,947.00	770.35	7,746.6
1924	87,786	893,916	9.82	114,109.00	769.32	7,833.9
1925	91,449	914,914	10.00	115,829.00	789.52	7,898.8
1926	97,885	974,698	10.04	117,397.00	833.79	8,302.6
1927	96,466	984,111	9.80	119,035.00	810.40	8,267.4
1928	98,305	995,390	9.88	120,509.00	815.74	8,259.9
1929	104,600	1,056,600	9.90	121,878.00	858.00	8,669.0
1930	92,200	966,700	9.54	123,188.00	748.00	7,847.0
1931	77,400	904,800	8.55	124,149.00	623.00	7,288.0
1932	59,500	788,200	7.55	124,949.00	476.00	6,308.0
1933	57,200	778,300	7.35	125,690.00	455.00	6,192.0
1934	66,800	862,200	7.75	126,485.00	528.00	6,817.0
1935	74,300	939,000	7.91	127,362.00	583.00	7,373.0
1936	84,900	1,060,500	8.01	128,181.00	662.00	8,273.0
1937	93,000	1,114,600	8.34	128,961.00	721.00	8,643.0
1938	87,400	1,077,700	8.11	129,969.00	672.00	8,292.0
1939	93,500	1,163,600	8.04	131,028.00	714.00	8,881.0
1940	102,900	1,266,100	8.13	132,122.00	779.00	9,583.0
1941	129,400	1,490,300	8.68	133,402.00	970.00	11,171.0
1942	166,000	1,771,800	9.37	134,860.00	1,231.00	13,138.0
1943	203,100	2,073,700	9.79	136,739.00	1,485.00	15,165.0
1944	224,600	2,239,400	10.03	138,397.00	1,623.00	16,181.0
1945	228,200	2,217,800	10.29	139,928.00	1,631.00	15,850.0
1946	227,800	1,960,900	11.62	141,389.00	1,611.00	13,869.0
1947	249,900	1,939,400	12.89	144,126.00	1,734.00	13,456.0
1948	274,800	2,020,000	13.60	146,631.00	1,874.00	13,776.0
1949	272,800	2,008,900	13.58	149,188.00	1,829.00	13,466.0
1950	300,200	2,184,000	13.75	151,684.00	1,979.00	14,398.0
1951	347,300	2,360,000	14.72	154,287.00	2,251.00	15,296.0
1952	367,700	2,456,100	14.97	156,954.00	2,343.00	15,649.0
1953	389,700	2,571,400	15.16	159,565.00	2,442.00	16,115.0
1954	391,100	2,556,900	15.30	162,391.00	2,408.00	15,745.0
1955	426,200	2,739,000	15.56	165,275.00	2,579.00	16,572.0
1956	450,100	2,797,400	16.09	168,221.00	2,676.00	16,629.0
1957	474,900	2,856,300	16.63	171,274.00	2,773.00	16,677.0
1958	482,000	2,835,300	17.00	174,141.00	2,768.00	16,282.0
1959	522,500	3,031,000	17.24	177,130.00	2,950.00	17,112.0
1960	543,300	3,108,700	17.48	180,760.00	3,006.00	17,198.0
1961	563,300	3,188,100	17.67	183,742.00	3,066.00	17,351.0
1962	605,100	3,383,100	17.89	186,590.00	3,243.00	18,131.0
1963	638,600	3,530,400	18.09	189,300.00	3,373.00	18,650.0
1964	685,800	3,734,000	18.37	191,927.00	3,573.00	19,455.0
1965	743,700	3,976,700	18.70	194,347.00	3,827.00	20,462.0
1966	815,000	4,238,900	19.23	196,599.00	4,145.00	21,561.0
1967	861,700	4,355,200	19.79	198,752.00	4,336.00	21,913.0
1968	942,500	4,569,000	20.63	200,745.00	4,695.00	22,760.0
1969	1,019,900	4,712,500	21.64	202,736.00	5,031.00	23,245.0
1970	1,075,900	4,722,000	22.79	205,089.00	5,246.00	23,024.0
1971	1,167,800	4,877,600	23.94	207,692.00	5,623.00	23,485.0
1972	1,282,400	5,134,300	24.98	209,924.00	6,109.00	24,458.0
1973	1,428,500	5,424,100	26.34	211,939.00	6,740.00	25,593.0
1974	1,548,800	5,396,000	28.70	213,898.00	7,241.00	25,227.0
1975	1,688,900	5,385,400	31.36	215,981.00	7,820.00	24,935.0
1976	1,877,600	5,675,400	33.08	218,086.00	8,609.00	26,024.0
1977	2,086,000	5,937,000	35.14	220,289.00	9,469.00	26,951.0
1978	2,356,600	6,267,200	37.60	222,629.00	10,585.00	28,151.0
1979	2,632,100	6,466,200	40.71	225,106.00	11,693.00	28,725.0
1980	2,862,500	6,450,400	44.38	227,726.00	12,570.00	28,325.0
1981	3,211,000	6,617,700	48.52	230,008.00	13,960.00	28,772.0
1982	3,345,000	6,491,300	51.53	232,218.00	14,405.00	27,953.0
1983	3,638,100	6,792,000	53.56	234,333.00	15,525.00	28,984.0
1984	4,040,700	7,285,000	55.47	236,394.00	17,093.00	30,817.0
1985	4,346,700	7,593,800	57.24	238,506.00	18,225.00	31,839.0
1986	4,590,200	7,860,500	58.40	240,683.00	19,072.00	32,659.0
1987	4,870,200	8,132,600	59.89	242,843.00	20,055.00	33,489.0
1988	5,252,600	8,474,500	61.98	245,061.00	21,434.00	34,581.0
1989	5,657,700	8,786,400	64.39	247,387.00	22,870.00	35,517.0
1990	5,979,600	8,955,000	66.77	250,181.00	23,901.00	35,794.0
1991	6,174,000	8,948,400	69.00	253,530.00	24,352.00	35,295.0
1992	6,539,300	9,266,600	70.57	256,922.00	25,452.00	36,068.0
1993	6,878,700	9,521,000	72.25	260,282.00	26,428.00	36,580.0
1994	7,308,800	9,905,400	73.79	263,455.00	27,742.00	37,598.0
1995	7,664,100	10,174,800	75.32	266,588.00	28,749.00	38,167.0
1996	8,100,200	10,561,000	76.70	269,714.00	30,033.00	39,156.0
1997	8,608,500	11,034,900	78.01	272,958.00	31,538.00	40,427.0
1998	9,089,200	11,525,900	78.86	276,154.00	32,914.00	41,737.0
1999	9,660,600	12,065,900	80.07	279,328.00	34,585.00	43,196.0
2000	10,284,800	12,559,700	81.89	282,398.00	36,420.00	44,475.0
2001	10,621,800	12,682,200	83.75	285,225.00	37,240.00	44,464.0
2002	10,977,500	12,908,800	85.04	287,955.00	38,122.00	44,829.0
2003	11,510,700	13,271,100	86.74	290,626.00	39,607.00	45,664.0
2004	12,274,900	13,773,500	89.12	293,262.00	41,856.00	46,967.0
2005	13,093,700	14,234,200	91.99	295,993.00	44,237.00	48,090.0
2006	13,855,900	14,613,800	94.81	298,818.00	46,369.00	48,905.0
2007	14,477,600	14,873,700	97.34	301,696.00	47,987.00	49,300.0
2008	14,718,600	14,830,400	99.25	304,543.00	48,330.00	48,697.0
2009	14,418,700	14,418,700	100.00	307,240.00	46,930.00	46,930.0
2010	14,964,400	14,783,800	101.22	309,776.00	48,307.00	47,724.0
2011	15,517,900	15,020,600	103.31	312,034.00	49,731.00	48,138.0
2012	16,163,200	15,369,200	105.17	314,246.00	51,435.00	48,908.0
2013	16,768,100	15,710,300	106.73	316,465.00	52,986.00	49,643.0
Note: Current data is only available till 2013.

As stated below, these data may be used for non-profit educational purposes if proper credit is given. However, users are prohibited from publishing more than five years of these data in electronic or print documents without specific permission. Anyone is allowed to publish electronic links to these data.

Citation

Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth, 2014 

URL: http://www.measuringworth.org/usgdp/

__________________________________

When deficit spending skyrockets while the coinage deflates, disaster strikes. Deflation, therefore, is far worse for the financial infrastructure than actual inflation, which is far easier to control under present standards. As interest rates deflate and debts rise, the battle to pay down debt becomes nearly impossible to achieve. As the world economy now faces this fate, the choices are as follows:

1. Default on the national debt and declare bankruptcy, thereby destroying the nation's credit rating internationally; 
2. Forgive all debt and restructure the entire monetary system and fiscal policy;
3. Engage in austerity economics, which entails that taxes be raised, interest rates driven down to artificial lows, monetary supply through quantitative easing implemented while expenditures are cut to where all debts are paid down.

Barack Obama is attempting the latter, but like the Eurozone, he has failed miserably in one respect. As taxes have been increased, interest rates driven to near zero percentile while monetarism implemented through turning on the printing presses, he is still incurring more and more debt, though currently at a lower rate. But once Obamacare takes full effect, even austerity will fail to pay down debt, and instead, our figure will skyrocket to unprecedented figures when adjusted to deflation. If the Federal Reserve drives down interest rates into the negative percentages, there will be no more securities or bonds to purchase and quantitative easing, for all intents and purposes, will reverse the trend into hyperinflation. 

Hyperinflation and the Death of Capitalism in America

To understand hyperinflation, one need only to reflect upon life during Weimar Germany during the 1920s prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933. Crashing economies typically result in warfare, which accompanies per usual the destructive bookend of social welfare expenditures. What you will read from Forbes published in April 2014 will frighten you, and should, since renowned economist Marc Faber correctly predicted the Stock Market Crash of 1987 and financial crash of 2007:

Is U.S. Hyperinflation Imminent?

Introduction

According to renowned economist Marc Faber, hyperinflation in the U.S. is a certainty within the next 10 years. Mr. Faber has correctly predicted some of the most important financial events in the modern era including, the stock market crash of 1987; the rise of oil, precious metals and other assets in the 2000′s; and on Fox News in February 2007, he said a U.S. stock market correction was imminent. The market peaked six months later. Is Mr. Faber correct this time? Is U.S. hyperinflation imminent in the next 10 years?

NOTE: For more on Marc Faber, CLICK HERE (his company website) and also HERE

In this article, we will discuss the effects of inflation and hyperinflation, consider an example of hyperinflation and discuss the possibility of this occurring in the U.S. One thing is certain, if hyperinflation does materialize, it would be devastating to our economy. Let’s begin with inflation.

Inflation

The Fed is the primary catalyst for inflation. Moreover, it actually attempts to create a low to moderate level of inflation. Why does the Fed want inflation? Because inflation is a signal of a growing economy. Additionally, if inflation is too high, the economy will suffer. If it’s too low, deflation becomes a threat. Therefore, low to moderate inflation is the goal.

Inflation may be defined as “A general rise in prices” and occurs when demand outpaces supply. Actually, there are a couple of ways inflation can manifest and the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy lies at the heart of both. For example, when the Fed lowers interest rates, money is cheaper to borrow. Next, when the Fed expands the money supply, money is more plentiful, which again, makes it easier to borrow. Finally, when the Fed reduces bank reserve requirements (i.e.: The percentage of each deposit which must be held in reserve at the Fed), banks have more money to lend. All three create an environment which makes money more plentiful and cheaper for consumers and businesses to borrow. Of course, this assumes consumers and businesses are willing to take on debt. Another consequence of a significant expansion in the money supply is the devaluation of the currency. In essence, when there is a substantial increase in the supply of an item, including currencies, its value declines. Hence, it takes more dollars to buy the same goods and services. In a literal sense, inflation is the result of a decline in the value of a currency. Therefore, if Fed policy is successful, the expectation is that demand will rise, companies will expand their workforce and/or spend more money on technology to meet the increased demand and the economy will grow. However, if demand increases too rapidly, inflation will result.

Although inflation is defined as a general increase in prices, during such periods, prices on some items may rise while others may fall. Therefore, we shouldn’t presume that if home prices rise; food prices, auto prices, etc., will also rise. Actually, prices on specific items rise and fall based on the Fed’s monetary policy plus supply and demand for the particular product or service. For example, let’s assume XYZ Company produces widgets and has a monopoly on them (i.e.: no other company is legally allowed to produce them). Further assume this company makes 8,000 widgets each month, but has the capacity to produce up to 10,000 if necessary. In this case, the company’s “Capacity Utilization” rate (i.e.: the company’s current percentage of maximum capacity) would be 80% (8,000 / 10,000). However, if demand were to suddenly increase to 15,000 widgets per month, XYZ would have to expand its facility, hire more staff and/or purchase technology to meet the increased demand. This would cause the price per unit to rise (at the production level), which would necessitate a price increase to the consumer in order to maintain the same margin of profit. If inflation became too elevated, it would be called hyperinflation. Let’s look at this now.

Hyperinflation

Hyperinflation is much less common than inflation. Unfortunately, there is no specific numerical definition for hyperinflation. However, there is some consensus. For example, a few economists suggest that an inflation rate of 50% per month would constitute hyperinflation. Using this rate, a junior cheeseburger deluxe at Wendy’s, which costs about one dollar today, would cost $130 a year from now and nearly $17,000 in 2 years. Needless to say, hyperinflation is a destructive force which is best avoided. Could we actually see hyperinflation in America? Has hyperinflation occurred frequently?

The Nineteenth century was the century of deflation, whereas the Twentieth century was the period of inflation. Hyperinflation occurred as many as 55 times over the past century. Notable countries include: China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Poland, Chile and others. Could it happen in America? Many experts say no.

Because the U.S. has a very proactive Fed, and there’s such a large amount of historical data from countries that have experienced hyperinflation, we should be able to learn from the past mistakes of others and avoid it. However, since inflation and hyperinflation are triggered by an excess of currency, which is not backed by gold or any other substance of value (i.e.; called “fiat” currency), there is no limit to the amount of dollars the U.S. can print (though we don’t print that much actual paper these days). Therefore, we need to briefly discuss the gold standard.

Gold Standard

There are a few different types of gold standards. However, in the interest of brevity, we’ll only skim the surface on this subject. Generally speaking, when a country adopts a gold standard, the amount of currency it may issue is limited by the amount of gold it holds in reserve. During times of war, a country’s need for capital increases, so abandoning the gold standard allows a country to expand its money supply to finance the war. This has been the typical path for countries during wartime. Today, there are no countries on the gold standard. In the absence of this, again there is no limit to amount of currency a country may print. This can be problematic, especially in smaller, developing nations. The absence of a gold standard was a key factor in one of the worst cases of hyperinflation in history. I’m referring to Germany following WWI.Germany’s Hyperinflation After WWI.

When WWI began, Germany abandoned its gold standard in order to print more currency to finance the war. When the war ended, Germany admitted they had started the war and agreed to pay reparations to various countries, with France being the major beneficiary. The details were included in the Treaty of Versailles, the document which formally ended the war. The amount Germany was required to pay was enormous. In fact, the total was close to 226 billion gold marks (approx $846 billion in current U.S. Dollars). After it became evident that Germany was unable to meet this demand, in 1921 the burden was reduced to 132 billion marks, the equivalent of $442 billion in today’s dollars. Due to the war, Germany’s economy was in shambles. Moreover, with many of its factories in ruin, its production capacity was severely reduced. Hence, even the reduction to 132 billion marks was well beyond its ability to repay. However, to help assure compliance, France and Belgium deployed troops to Germany from 1923 to 1925. During this period, Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, issued a massive amounts of marks to repay its debt. However, because Germany had abandoned the gold standard, its currency was backed only by the full faith and credit of its government. Between this monetary explosion and the loss of confidence in its currency, the German mark experienced a massive decrease in value, which resulted in severe hyperinflation. To better grasp the situation at that time, prices doubled during the five years from 1914 to 1919. They doubled again in only five months in 1922. In 1914, the ratio between the mark and the U.S. Dollar was 4.2 German Marks to one dollar. By 1923, it took 4.2 trillion marks to equal one dollar. The German currency had totally collapsed. This also contributed to a brief, but sharp recession in the U.S. (August 1918 to March 1919).

Who Benefits And Who Suffers From Inflation And Hyperinflation?

The beneficiaries of high inflation include any individual or entity who has borrowed money at a fixed rate. High inflation also benefits investors who own commodities, and businesses that derive a significant portion of revenue from exports. Who loses with inflation? First, the overall economy suffers. Specifically, consumers lose purchasing power and their standard of living erodes. Lenders are also hurt as are those who need to borrow. The latter group suffers because lenders raise their interest rates to hedge against inflation. In short, money becomes much more expensive. Finally, import-oriented businesses struggle when inflation is high.

Hyperinflation, on the other hand, hurts almost everyone. It decimates the middle class. It can cause massive bank failures, especially banks with large amounts of outstanding fixed-rate loans. And, although borrowers who have a fixed rate loan do benefit, because prices on everything else are increasing so rapidly, any benefit from the loans is erased by the extreme cost of goods and services. There really are no winners with hyperinflation.

The Potential for Hyperinflation in the U.S. Today

Could the U.S. experience hyperinflation? If you look at the amount of the Feds monetary expansion since 2008, then you would likely conclude yes. For example, when the financial crisis began, the Fed’s balance sheet was around $800 billion. Today, it is over $4 trillion. That’s a tremendous increase. However, it’s important to note that the majority of this new money is sitting at the Federal Reserve and has not actually entered the economy. If this were not the case, if all this capital were allowed to enter the economy, inflation would be very high. Perhaps not hyperinflation, but I believe it would be much higher than it was during the late 1970s.

Why would the Fed flood the market with so much money if it wasn’t intended to enter the economy? Because during the 2008 crisis, not counting the banks that did go out of business, a large number of other banks nearly collapsed. The actions of the Fed were nothing short of brilliant. They created a glut of new money through T.A.R.P., QEII, Operation Twist and QEIII. Then they offered to pay interest to banks on their reserves, which from a financial standpoint made it profitable to banks to leave large amounts on reserve. Hence, with the majority of this new money in reserve, bank balance sheets have been greatly strengthened. It’s important to note that the financial sector must be strong if the economy is to thrive. The Feds challenge will come when it’s time to unwind it all.

With over $4.2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet ($3.8 trillion more than at the beginning of the crisis), when demand finally increases and lenders need more capital to lend, or when the Fed decides not to pay interest on bank reserves, the Fed will have to reverse course and, instead of buying bonds (which removes cash from its balance sheet and increases the money supply), it will be selling bonds (removing cash from the economy, reducing the money supply). This is where things could get dicey. This is also why the Fed would like to end QEIII as soon as possible. Because the longer it continues, the more money there will be to remove and this could cause a severe dislocation in the financial markets. In other words, when the Fed ceases QEIII, the stock market could decline along with bond prices.

Conclusion

Is Marc Faber correct in his prediction? Will the U.S. experience hyperinflation within the next 10 years? It all depends on consumer demand and the leadership of the new Fed Chair, Janet Yellen. It will also depend on economic growth in the rest of the world. The road out of the 2008 crisis has been masterfully maneuvered thus far. Will the next leg of the monetary journey be as smooth? I believe the Fed has done an outstanding job, all things considered. However, with a new chairperson, will the Fed continue to guide the economy with the same precision? My guess is that it will. After all, there are a lot of very bright individuals making decisions, and that gives me confidence. We’ll see if Mr. Faber is right. For the sake of all of us, I hope he’s wrong.

***

Conclusion

Let us pray, ladies and gentlemen, that deflation and sub-zero interest rates do not lead to a final global economic collapse. It is this reason why I favor decentralizing all monetary, price and credit controls within the Federal Reserve and the responsibility to determine interest rates passed on to individual banking firms and corporations to encourage competition. To do this slashes drastically a systemic financial collapse of epic proportions and in the process, permitting banks to adjust according to their clientele in the war for business in a region. I propose selling off Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae as shares to the public so that the American people have a stake in what will be three privatized financial firms and lead to a massive level of government revenue that would be determined by what the market for these shares demands. Lastly, the Sixteenth Amendment must be repealed, which would not only destroy the IRS, but dissolve the federal income tax. Doing so will mitigate the plight of down periods of recessions as taxes through an indirect method such as the Fair Tax will be market driven and based upon what each person can afford as a voluntary measure, not by confiscating what one cannot spare. Labor unions either need to be crippled as Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) has successfully accomplished, or the entire Wagner Act of 1938 repealed in full in order to pave way for economic growth in the industrial sector and in the end, encouraging the resurrection of small business entrepreneurship in the poorest urban area neighborhoods and resurrect through more antitrust suits to break up corporate retailer monopolies to return the American Dream into the power of those who can best provide the greatest bulk of technological and service based innovation. Finally, there must be a federal balanced budget amendment passed to place a firm cap on what can be spent while the free market, through a capital model for indirect taxation, will launch tax revenue to engage in budget surpluses, in which a sizable percentage will be employed in paying down our national deficit while the remainder is returned to the general public as a natural measure for economic stimuli with particular attention paid to engaging in small business investment. 

This is in no manner a perfect solution or conclusive plan to end the taxation and spending cycle leading to our pending economic collapse. Rather, it is a series of ideas to consider, to ask of your thoughts and to encourage fiscal restraint by driving government spending through a market-dictated stratagem. The purpose of this article is to warn one and all of the dangers facing the global economy today, for as China continues to devalue the reminibi to undercut the dollar, the rise of Alibaba as the newest stock on Wall Street could serve as the final step to a post capitalist world due to growing volatility.