- More than 900,000 separate real assets covering more than 3 billion sq. ft.
- Mineral rights, on and offshore, covering 2.515 billion acres of land, more than the total surface land in Canada -45,190 underutilized buildings, the operating costs of which are $1.66 billion annually
- Oil and gas resources on and offshore worth $128 trillion, roughly eight times the national debt of the country
This doesn't even include all of our military resources. Add that in and all of the obsessive focus on our debt is seen clearly as being irrational and hysterical. Even the Heritage Foundation agrees.
So, given these very simple facts, it seems that some folks have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes (see: lying) simply because they have a pathological hatred of the federal government (see also, unresolved issues with parents, authority, massive insecurity) and can't admit when they are wrong.
So, given these very simple facts, it seems that some folks have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes (see: lying) simply because they have a pathological hatred of the federal government (see also, unresolved issues with parents, authority, massive insecurity) and can't admit when they are wrong.
43 comments:
As I said earlier - do you really think the gov't can get away with hocking Mt. Rushmore to pay the bills?
Are those gas and mineral reserves worth a shit if that same gov't won't let you drill or mine?
Underutilized buildings? You mean the gov't is spending too damn much on shit they don't need? And you say it's not a spending problem?
Even the Heritage Foundation agrees that the focus on the debt is obsessive? You must not have read this paragraph (or at least not comprehended the meaning of it):
The federal government currently holds about 9,000 tons of gold. These holdings have had no practical use since President Richard Nixon took the country off the gold standard in 1971. Some argue that this gold is necessary in case of a national emergency. What emergency could be greater than the rapidly approaching fiscal train wreck?
However, I do agree that the .gov has a lot of holdings, and that it wastes much of it. But saying we need to stop wasting so money has had anathema pronounced against it on this site by ... you.
"hocking Mt. Rushmore to pay the bills?"
A completely expected response..childish and dishonest.
Do federal assets outweigh our debt? Yes or no? If yes, by how much?
Assets to protect a debt are only useful if they can be used to protect the debt - either voluntarily or involuntarily.
As you've correctly pointed out, with the worlds most powerful military, nobody is going to be able to forcefully repossess property to recoup losses.
As for voluntarily, what you consider a childish response is not. There would be no will to hock gov't property from the population that actually owns it or from a gov't that has a printing press and can hyper-inflate currency.
If the assets can not or will not be used to protect the debt then those assets do not exist in the context of that debt.
That doesn't really answer the question. Do they outweigh them or not? Consider this...
Suppose that federal assets only have a 10 percent cash value of their paper value. That still puts us well into the black when you add it all together. I'm being very conservative here because you know full well that our assets massively outweigh our debt and I haven't even figured in the fact that we have the #1 economy in the world. The United States government is in very sound shape and is likely the safest bet in the world. Wouldn't you agree?
...and can't admit when they are wrong.
Yes M we get that about you.
Do they outweigh them or not?
No. The value of a barrel of crude in the ground is not the same as one currently on the market. There is a cost to drill and deliver crude to a refinery - and to pay the royalty to the U.S. govt. So to assign full market value when the govt will only ever realize a royalty is a mistake I would expect from a liberal.
Well, at least you went on record saying they weren't. But you are only talking about oil here. Did you read the entire report? What about our military hardware?
Why, yes, wouldn't that be lovely. We could sell off our military hardware and technology. Gosh, we don't have a use for it, and there's all those poor countries that do.
But I'll bet the concept of 'supply and demand' never entered your pointy little head, did it? Put lots of stuff on the market and watch the price plummet as demand is met (and then some). Whatever you think our military hardware is worth is only a small fraction of what you would actually get for it in a fire sale. Actual example of principle in practice: Russia post-1990. Not to mention the desperation and lack of wisdom of such a move. Once the needs of our allies are met, You'll find that there's going to be a lot left over since they mostly already have what they need/want (except in the case of F-35 vaporware).
Larry, do federal assets outweigh federal debt, given the information in this report?
Yes, I would think so, but not be nearly so much as they presume. As juris points out, there's a huge difference between what a barrel of oil in the ground in a technologically difficult to reach location that hasn't been accessed yet versus a barrel of oil already produced and available for sale is worth. Not to mention the absolute bugfuck-insane shit-fits that people like your friend Nikto would be having if we even tried to open up a portion of all that oil/gas/minerals to exploitation. "You're raping America! You're killing Mother Earth! Earth First Forever! Death to loggers/miners/drillers/fishermen, but most of all, Death to the evil capitalists!" Your reaction would presumably be less extreme, but it's hard to tell. Of course, with your hero in the White House, we don't have to worry too much about that, do we? Actually bringing all of that production on line will of course introduce downward pressure on prices, so their estimates of what it's all worth are just guesstimates pulled out of dark places.
One thing that comes across again and again in that report is how incredibly wasteful the Federal government is and how incredibly bad some of it's own projections and forecasts are. So by all means, lets vote them more authority and more power, and full speed ahead on crashing through the next 25 debt ceilings!!!
The excessive Federal building space is almost certainly worth a lot less than guesstimated. A lot of that would depend on location and other factors, such as how much available building space is already on the market in that area? In my area, there's a lot of empty building space available, yet more's being built all the time. It doesn't really make any sense, until you take into account the crazy perverse incentives built into the incredibly arcane tax laws, and the almost "free money" policy the Fed's been following until recently. When the commercial real estate crash comes, it won't be any prettier than the housing crash.
With that being said, don't you now think that the debt isn't something as severe as you make it out to be?
What about our military hardware?
Are those assets for sale? If not, then they can't ever satisfy a debt, can they?
Not really, because the debt isn't static. Even you have expressed concern about the growth of the debt at times (usually followed by a quick 180, then a 90 right, then 450 left, and then you proclaim that's been your one and only position all along). But if it really doesn't bother you that we spend more on interest payments on the debt than on Depts. of Ed., HHS, HUD, State, Energy and likely a couple more put together, then, "Fuck the debt ceiling! The sky's the limit!"
However, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that, under current law, debt held by the public will exceed $16 trillion by 2020, reaching nearly 70 percent of GDP. CBO also projects that interest rates will go up. The combination of rising debt and rising interest rates is projected to cause net interest payments to balloon to nearly $800 billion, or 3.4 percent of GDP, by 2020. Of course, there's all kinds of caveats, and because like so many politico-economic projections, they're SWAGS (Scientific Wild-Assed GuesseS) pulled out of (hopefully) wise asses, they list other possibilities. I have difficulty seeing any of their alternatives being good, but maybe that's just because I don't believe enough in magic unicorns crapping money on our heads. Teach us, Markadelphia! Teach us!
With that being said, don't you now think that the debt isn't something as severe as you make it out to be?
Why? If those assets can not or will not ever be capable of relieving that debt - then talk about them in the context of the debt is an exercise in mental masturbation....
That leaves us talking about the debt only in the context of income to the gov't in order to satisfy it.
usually followed by a quick 180, then a 90 right, then 450 left
You know if M's arguments could be converted into a snowboard routine, it would be solid gold.
Except for the head in the ass part.
"Fuck the debt ceiling! The sky's the limit!"
The debt ceiling would be entirely moot if Congress didn't authorize a certain level of spending to begin with. The question is...why would they do that? Paul Ryan was one of the main architects of the latest budgets...hmm...:)
Mainly because people are numerically illiterate and think that a decrease in the rate of growth is a 'cut'.
Oh, and a bunch of people think the government should do a lot of stuff and needs more money to do all that stuff.
You know if M's arguments could be converted into a snowboard routine, it would be solid gold.
Except for the head in the ass part.
You owe me a new keyboard, juris! :-D
The damned thing is, I could vividly picture Markadelphia attempting that trick, truly believing it would earn beaucoup style points -- right up to the point when he tasted the "Agony of Defeat". I just didn't realize that it tasted like ass.
Are you guys still in denial about how the comments section is essentially a circle jerk for your amusement? And you call yourselves critical thinkers...tsk tsk:)
GD, government spending contributes to growth, increases wealth and sometimes is good for the economy. This is true whether you want to like it or not.
Oh M, I can have my fun at your expense and still answer you too - what U.S. govt assets are there that offset the debt?
We've disposed of natural resources (where the govt only gets a royalty, not full market value) and our military equipment and facilities. So, where does that leave your contention?
Hey, M, it's no worse and no different than the never-ending circle jerk of adolescent outrage perpetrated by the bloggers in residence. I must admit this blog is kind of a guilty pleasure, kind of like Whack-a-Mole. And I'm always wondering just which hole will this fool blogger's head pop out of next? They're almost all unpleasant, smelly holes, but sometimes you surprise me.
Disposed of them, juris? My, what a head we have with our imperial edicts. Just to be clear, the federal government has very little if nothing in the way of valuable assets and our debt overwhelms all. Is that what you are saying?
Larry, commenting on a blog is pretty much all you guys have left. I don't see your ideology in practice anywhere in the world. So, I'm happy to provide you with one last place to be yourself:)
Disposed of them, juris?
Well if you wish to contend that I was wrong - you might want to make an argument to that effect.
Just to be clear, the federal government has very little if nothing in the way of valuable assets
An "asset" only has value if it can be exchanged in the market place. Is that what you want - the govt's assets to be auctioned off to pay off debt? If it isn't, then your argument about assets doesn't amount to much, does it?
Well if you wish to contend that I was wrong - you might want to make an argument to that effect.
I did. You didn't like it so you ignored the facts and made shit up. Speaking of arguments, you really haven't made much of one. You just went along with Larry. How can you be so sure he's right? So far, he's completely incapable of making counter points without resorting to insults. Read the report thoroughly, juris, and then offer comments that are completely devoid of personal remarks and imperial edicts. Simply stating that I "got it wrong" with the sychophant brigade immaturely giggling along doesn't cut it. In fact, this would be a great topic of debate over at debate.org. Any takers?:)
Is that what you want - the govt's assets to be auctioned off to pay off debt?
The federal government sells the assets I have listed all the time. Do you agree with the recommendations of the Heritage Foundation? Yes or no? We don't only make money from tax revenue. We make it in other ways such as this and international trade. If a corporation had this many assets, they would be valuable. But since it is the government, it somehow can't be valuable.
you ignored the facts
Actually you didn't present any facts to rebut juris' statement re liquidating assets.
I didn't rebut him because it was a terribly ignorant comment and I don't do end zone dances. The idea that our oil and natural gas reserves are worthless and we would have a hard time selling them on the world market is asinine.
I didn't rebut him because it was a terribly ignorant comment
The U.S. govt does not collect the full market value for every drop or gram of minerals extracted. It collects royalties on those - which are only a fraction of FMV. Nor do you have any fact, reason or argument - you just have a link to someone else. How fucking pathetic.
I guess you aren't going to be so retarded as to actually argue in favor of selling off aircraft carriers to pay off the debt. Or was I ignorant about that too?
Are you or your bloggers on this very blog AGAINST
fracking
transporting oil via rail
building pipelines
selling oil
burning oil
Do you want to reduce the deficit by selling oil?
That's a simple question, the answer which really answers whether those supposed assets are any such thing.
juris, a few simple questions for you...
Does the US sell military hardware for a profit? Y or N?
Does the US sell oil for a profit? Y or N?
Does the US sell natural gas for a profit? Y or N?
Does the US sell land to private firms for profit? Y or N?
Does the US sell buildings and other property to private firms for a profit? Y or N?
Do they do all of these things on an ongoing basis? Y or N?
Finally, does the market value change when the federal government owns something as opposed to when a private firm owns it? Y or N?
No one but you has made the assertion that our oil and mineral assets are worthless, Markadelphia, and you did it in order to misrepresent other people's opinions by setting up a strawman for you to attack since you can't refute the actual argument. That's a common tactic you use, usually called "lying" by straight-talking non-diplomatic people. I guess the injunction to not bear false witness is another one those things you mentally struck from your Bible? Either that, or you must get, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!" hollered at you a lot.
You just went along with Larry. How can you be so sure he's right? So far, he's completely incapable of making counter points without resorting to insults.
Well, except for the ones timestamped at 7:23 PM, 5:23 PM, 5:13 PM.
And you did specifically mention military hardware at 10:23 AM. If you weren't talking about liquidating it to pay off debts, what were you suggesting, pray tell?
GD, speaking for myself, the answers are...
Unsure, need more info
No
No
No
For now, no, but we do need to switch over to renewables and I think the US will be the leader in that market as well. The DoD is already way out in front on this and guess who other folks will come to with the $$? Our technology and innovation is second to none...another reason to not worry so much about the debt.
Did you read the full report? You are very focused on oil. What about the 41 million acres of land? Certainly there are private US firms who would want to buy some of that right? That's just one example. You keep bitching to me about how I'm wrong yet you willfully ignore the information in this report. Why?
No one but you has made the assertion that our oil and mineral assets are worthless, Markadelphia
Alright, Larry, then what are they worth? Hint...it's in the report...did you read it?
If you weren't talking about liquidating it to pay off debts, what were you suggesting, pray tell?
Larry, do really want me to explain to you how we regularly sell military equipment to other countries and private firms? Really?
It almost sounds like Markadelphia is now pro-Gaia-raping, arms-dealing merchants of death. Next thing he'll be telling us is that because we are the government and the government is us, the government can make us work for whatever pay rate it chooses because, after all, "we're" choosing to do it. I wonder what price attractive blondes fetch in the Middle East these days?
Questions for Markadelphia:
1) Does the Federal government receive 100% of the sale price of every barrel of oil, ton of coal, cord of wood, etc.? Without bearing ANY of the costs of extraction or production? Doesn't .gov actually sell rights to mine/logs/drill in return for a usually small fraction of sales price?
2) US arms sales: are they or are they not made by private companies if and when when the US government allows them to do so? Or does .gov receive 100% of the sales price without bearing any of the production costs? Certainly they can sell existing hardware, they sure as hell don't get a mark-up on surplus equipment.
3) Yes, of course .gov can sell buildings, land, etc. No one has suggested they can't, except for you making a strawman argument.
And fer Chrissake, Markadelphia, don't you know that a large part of our arms sales are at least partially subsidized by the Federal government in the form of credits, loan guarantees, and other foreign aid?
Do you want the gov't to sell millions of acres to reduce the debt?
If you don't want that to happen, how likely is it to actually happen? If it isn't likely to happen, then that land is not an asset that can be used to protect the debt...
For fucks sake.
Unsure, need more info
No
No
No
Oh, and I'll be remembering these for the next time you rail against these things.
Larry: No one but you has made the assertion that our oil and mineral assets are worthless, Markadelphia.
M: Alright, Larry, then what are they worth? Hint...it's in the report...did you read it?
See my responses above, chowderhead. Where the fuck did I say they were worthless? I made some specific points about why those assets aren't worth to the Federal government 100% of what they calculate. Not least because surging production will put downward pressure on prices. They just assume a static price pulled out the air for convenience. Did you bother to read what the study says the Federal government can actually get for all that evil oil & gas? They're talking about a potential additional tens of billions per year over a 10-year period. Did you read that? Hint: it's in the report. And then, course, they cover their asses by noting how far bad government estimates often are. Did you that? Hint: it's in the report.
And only in your fairyland utopia isn't a large chunk of the population not going to go ape-shit over the environmental costs of going after all of that. Look at all of the resistance over the last few years to the Feds doing a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to surge production on Federal lands.
I don't know if you've driven across the West where the vast majority of Federal land is, but a huge percentage of it is barren wasteland. It won't exactly sell at beachfront Malibu prices.
Does the US sell military hardware for a profit?
No - not the US govt, but US contractors do (when the govt allows it and/or subsidizes it).
Does the US sell oil for a profit?
US oil corporations do, but not the govt. Same for natural gas.
Does the US sell land to private firms for profit?
Not US govt land, and not for profit.
Does the US sell buildings and other property to private firms for a profit?
No. The US govt does on occasion sell buildings that are surplus to current and future use. They do not do so for (or at a) profit.
What about the 41 million acres of land? Certainly there are private US firms who would want to buy some of that right?
Sure there are - and you can bet a thousand different environmental and social factions would swamp any effort to do so - even by a Dem Administration. Of course I had no idea you would support privatizing the National Parks (by selling them off to Disney and whatnot).
Any other stupid fucking questions oh High Priest of Pusillanimous Hypocrisy?
Now M, you get to answer my question.
If you aren't going to sell an asset, what value does it have to pay off a debt?
I made some specific points about why those assets aren't worth to the Federal government 100% of what they calculate.
Considering they are worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, we don't need them to be 100 percent now do we?
If you aren't going to sell an asset, what value does it have to pay off a debt?
It has the same value as it would by a private firm who may not ever sell. Since I don't think you are saying that land doesn't have any value, you must be saying that government land doesn't have any value. Correct?
It has the same value as it would by a private firm who may not ever sell.
You know what is right and you won't say it, will you?
How childish, and dishonest.
Since I don't think you are saying that land doesn't have any value, you must be saying that government land doesn't have any value. Correct?
No, I'm sure you could find someone to buy Yosemite, although perhaps not at the price you want. But if the govt honestly wanted to sell, they could. Of course, the govt doesn't sell off land like that, does it M? Nor would you accept it doing so, would you?
So now we are back to discussing the value of something that will never be sold. Pretty futile.
It has the same value as it would by a private firm who may not ever sell.
No it doesn't.
A private firm can be forced to sell, gov't cannot.
A private firm's assets are just that - assets to be used.
A gov'ts property is in trust for it's people. Those people may not wish their property sold to pay for proliferate spending.
This is actually one of those times when you are sort of correct when you say a gov't budget is not like a household budget.
Post a Comment