[deleted]
Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
41–47 of 47 posts
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
New Caledonia isn't a tax haven. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, and most likely contain quite a large proportion of the UK's t-bill holdings.
The Channel Islands are not a 'tax haven'[1], though we sometimes get called this by foreign politicians[2]. It is easy to take a cheap shot at a few islands outside your voting district. A much easier idea for a politician to sell, than a plan to balance the budget at home. [1] http://www.jerseyfinance.je/ceo-blog/it-s-official---jersey-... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-23902431
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/09/hsbc-jersey-...
UK tax authorities are in the early stages of examining a recently received leaked list of 4,388 British residents who bank with HSBC in the tax haven of Jersey.
HM Revenue and Customs confirmed it was probing the list, following a report that serious criminals were banking in the Channel Islands, for potential tax evasion.
"We can confirm we have received the data and we are studying it," HMRC said in a statement. "Clamping down on those who try to cheat the system through evading taxes and over-claiming benefits is a top priority for us, and we value the information we receive from the public and business community."
The information is the latest in a string of illegal leaks of private offshore financial details from some of Europe's most controversial tax haven jurisdictions. HMRC is reported not to have paid for the information on HSBC accounts, though that could not be confirmed.
Secret bank accounts with low tax rates? Refusal to co-operate with UK tax authorities? Sounds like a tax haven to me.
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#43Meanwhile, at the end of 2011, 54% of US T-bills were still held by domestic entities: http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/ownership.html edit: and it appears that China holds 22.6% of 46%, or (unless my math is horribly wrong) only about 10% of total US debt. Which, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't that much.
Exactly. Though the CNN chart looks super cereal[1], China only owns about 8% of the US debt as of 2011[2]. Of course, that's not to say we don't have an addiction to cheap credit in this country[3]. EDIT: The parent post was edited to add the China info, making this one largely moot. Leaving here for the links (sorry about the first one ;-) [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w…
"Addiction" seriously?
If you can get cheap credit and do something useful GDP-wise with it, you take it. You should always take it - there's never a reason not to.
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real reason is that China has, for a long time (not any more... sort of), had a policy of pegging the Yuan to the Dollar. In order to do this, they needed to buy a lot of Treasuries.
Even if they didn't peg to the dollar....where else are they going to put all that cash? They already own as much of the other commodities as they can get their hands on. Ultimately, they want to protect the surpluses they have accumulated. What better way to do that than put it in the safest security in the world - well to date anyway. Sucks to be them though....they have no choice but to keep buying Treasuries. Thi…
Its the old "if you owe the bank $10,000 you've got a problem...if you owe the bank $10 million the bank has a problem".
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Though the CNN chart looks super cereal[1], China only owns about 8% of the US debt as of 2011[2]. Of course, that's not to say we don't have an addiction to cheap credit in this country[3]. EDIT: The parent post was edited to add the China info, making this one largely moot. Leaving here for the links (sorry about the first one ;-) [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w…
"Addiction" seriously? If you can get cheap credit and do something useful GDP-wise with it, you take it. You should always take it - there's never a reason not to.
If and and. Funding wars abroad is generally never intelligent from a GDP PoV (funding wars at home at least gets you to rebuild/modernise stuff later on).
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#46"United Kingdom includes Channel Islands and Isle of Man" Well, I'm glad they specified that! Though I am left wondering if the total for France includes New Caledonia... and of course, it's something of a travesty that they didn't indicate whether or not the total for Russia includes the Kaliningrad oblast.
It's worth specifying that if they've lumped them in with the UK, since the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man aren't actually part of the UK. Heck, they aren't even part of the EU either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isle... Wikipedia has a nice Euler diagram and the full nitty gritty details.
Wikipedia definitely has a thing for Euler diagrams[0], but this one is actually useful. Thank you very much! :)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bo...
Re: Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
In any case, the US cannot default on its debt because it is denominated in US dollars and we can always print more dollars. There's a name for that solution - it's called a soft default, and it's not a new idea. Clearly there is a limit to this, or politicians wouldn't bother with a budget or taxes at all - they'd just print money as required. It dilutes the value of existing currency and is a dangerous game which i…
Inflation doesn't punish the poor. It punishes the savers. Balanced budget/deficit/surplus are tools and not goals. When the business don't/can't spend it is the government job to pick up the slack (deficit). And when business is investing it makes sense for the government to not compete for the same capital and labor with the private sector (balanced/surplus).
It punishes the poor because prices for goods and services rise much sooner than wages or salaries. Those making the lowest wages are hurt the most by this.
If we are going to have a minimum wage, it would be a bit more sane to have it change automatically and regularly, pegged to inflation by some agreed-upon and not-constantly-screwed-around-with formula ... but that doesn't mean the BLS wouldn't fudge the numbers anyway, in order to help / hurt those in power.