The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Michael]

My point, exactly.



You have provided nothing whatsoever that would substantiate that assertion.

The fact of the matter is that median real household income has increased by about 25% over the time period you invoke (1960's to today).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.jpg

Does this account for the movement of women into the workforce? If so then that seems like a pull-back into household wealth.

And, 25% seems rather pathetic given the productivity gains over the same period.

 

[quadraphonics]

Does this account for the movement of women into the workforce?

It accounts for everything that impacted median household income.

If so then that seems like a pull-back into household wealth.

You mean on a per-worker basis, presumably. Not necessarily - the same period saw a rise in single-parent households along with the increase of women in the workforce, for example.

And we are discussing household income, not household wealth.

And, 25% seems rather pathetic given the productivity gains over the same period.

It's not that far behind the estimated productivity gains in the period in question, but the upshot is that much of those producitivity gains came from automation and offshoring, and so get expressed more as increased inequality at the top end, rather than boosting the median household income.

 

[Billy T]

... The fact of the matter is that median real household income has increased by about 25% over the time period you invoke (1960's to today). ...

That is true, but as Michael noted, the 25% increase in HOUSEHOLD INCOMES in last 60 years is due entirely to that fact that very few women worked for pay 60 years ago and now about half do. I spoke of JOB PAY rates in real terms, not the increase in the average number of people working from each household.

Nice try at switching the subject, however.

Real wages have been stagnate. No gain from 1964 until 2005 and then have decreased about 7% after that (from another source already quoted.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

PS the fact than many households now need two or even three jobs, just to make ends meet is more proof that wages buy less now. Most women worked in the home for no pay back in the 1960s. I.e. 2 or 3 "Big Mac" jobs now equal one of the higher pay factory jobs that move to Asia or was automated.

 

[quadraphonics]

That is true, but as Michael noted, the 25% increase in HOUSEHOLD INCOMES in last 60 years is due entirely to that fact that very few women worked for pay 60 years and and now about half do.

I don't see where you have provided any data or analysis to substantiate that assertion.

The frame of reference in question was the last 50 years, not 60.

In point of fact, a large number of women moved into the workforce during WWII, prior to the time period in question. This is common knowledge, and symbolized by the famous Rosie the Riveter character. It is true that that trend accelerated further later in the 20th century. However, there is in that time a countervailing trend in the increasing number of single households and divorces, as I have already observed, so it is unclear how trends in female employment have figured into median household income. A great many of the women who entered the workforce since 1960 did so as new, single-earner households and not as second jobs in two-earner households. Unless and until you can account for that, your conclusion is premature and unwarranted.

If you have some analysis and data that substantiate your assertion there, you should present it. If not, you can hardly expect anyone to accept it on its face. I contend that the huge rise in divorce and single-parent households calls your assertion into question, and that without a detailed analysis it is invalid to jump to the sweeping assertion that you do. Moreover, I expect you to be pointedly disinterested in actually analyzing the situation in a meaningful, conclusive manner. You just want to shoot off the most prejudicial, pessimistic assertions that you can come up with, and then change the subject to some other scary-sounding anecdote.

I spoke of JOB PAY rates in real terms, not the increase in the average number of people working from each household.

Nice try at switching the subject, however.

We were talking about the solvency of Social Security - the subject that you keep running away from - which is primarily affected by household incomes, and not by JOB PAY per worker. It is you who keeps changing the subject, this time apparently to the question of wages - which you, characteristically, approach by throwing around wild, unsubstantiated assertions.

I'm happy enough to discuss any data you might have on trends in real wages and how they impact Social Security, but you'll have to actually produce such data in the first place. Most of the statistics that are widely available deal in household income, so that's what I offered up. If you can do better, by all means do.

Meanwhile, getting back to the subject: US GDP per capita, and overall GDP, have grown a great deal (in real terms) since the 1960's. There is a lot more GDP, and GDP per capita, to tax to fund things like Social Security now, than there was 50 years ago. Have you given up on arguing that the changes in the US economy since 1960 have made Social Security harder to fund? Because it certainly seems that you do not want to engage substantively on any of these issues you keep raising, but rather just to shotgun out scary-sounding anecdotes while indulging your desire to sermonize and predict doom.

 

[Billy T]

... We were talking about the solvency of Social Security ...

Nonsense, not even a nice try.
Your:
“The fact of the matter is that median real household income has increased by about 25% over the time period you invoke (1960's to today).”

Was a direct response to my:
“it not as if the lost jobs have been replaced by better paying jobs, higher up in the value added chain - most replacement jobs, for those who can even find one, are "big Mac" jobs at lower pay.”

Nothing to do with the Social security issue we were discussing earlier.

... Have you given up on arguing that the changes in the US economy since 1960 have made Social Security harder to fund?

I was telling that in less than 20 or so years there will be great problem for the US government to payoff the promissory notes of the SS (indirectly held by their trust fund), not saying it was hard to fund SS now. - In fact until very recently, SS was helping fund the governments expenses.
Here is what I said (not words about current funding problems you place in my mouth):

{post 375in part}... continuation of 2+ decades of the decline in US economic competitiveness is very much on the BOTH the thread´s subject (see its title) AND on the issue of Social Security (subject of many recent posts) as it is only paper promises that the government will pay in future that are deposited in the SS trust fund; so if government is broke, unable to borrow, with many unemployed as US has lost, in almost every field, it competitive position in the world economy so government cannot collect the even greater taxes than NOW needed to pay off those SS trust fund notes, etc. then, those paper promises are just that - i.e. worthless except as toilet paper.

 

[quadraphonics]

Well, that's bullshit, as anyone who reads the exchange in question will immediately see. We were discussing exactly the Social Security issue in the posts you pulled those quotes from - although your standard tactic of constantly eliding the subject is, of course, noted.

Meanwhile, what do you hope to accomplish with these malicious editing tactics that you are always resorting to?

And I notice that you have, yet again, totally ignored all of the issues of substance and data that I challenged you to respond to, in favor of siezing onto some lame pretext to hurl false accusations around. I will - again - regard that as not only a concession of the substance in question, but also a clear demonstration of your dishonor.

 

[Billy T]

I don't see where you have provided any data or analysis to substantiate that assertion. ... In point of fact, a large number of women moved into the workforce during WWII, prior to the time period in question. This is common knowledge, and symbolized by the famous Rosie the Riveter character. It is true that that trend accelerated further later in the 20th century. However, there is in that time a countervailing trend in the increasing number of single households and divorces, as I have already observed, so it is unclear how trends in female employment have figured into median household income. A great many of the women who entered the workforce since 1960 did so as new, single-earner households and not as second jobs in two-earner households. Unless and until you can account for that, your conclusion is premature and unwarranted. ...If you have some analysis and data that substantiate your assertion there, you should present it.

First: The switch to HOUSEHOLD INCOMES was of your doing (subject switching). I ONLY spoke of fact average real wages are falling.
Secondly: We were not discussing WWII, "Rosie the Riveter´s period. (stop switching) I provided data on increase in the number of women in the work force during the post 1950 period we were discussing here:

... Graph shows percent of work force that is employed. Blue is men, pink is women and black is average.

...

Graph from post http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rn-Economies&p=2960413&viewfull=1#post2960413
and you saw it, commenting on it in following post 99

BTW I´m the one providing the quickly understood data graphs, and most of the reference, without any personal attacks, name calling, or subject switching, truncated sentences to distort, etc.

 

[Billy T]

“…Consider Illinois, an idiot poster child for how bad things have gotten... and how tough the fix will be. "It is getting worse every single day," the Illinois state comptroller laments. "We are not paying bills for absolutely essential services. That is obscene."

Illinois is facing a $12 billion deficit and a $5 billion budget shortfall. To add insult to injury, by conservative estimates, the state's pension system is 50% underfunded.
It has reached the point at which the state has, quite literally, stopped paying bills. This means that jobs are getting cut, paychecks are getting delayed, and businesses are being shut down. There is simply -- and again, quite literally -- no more money.

California is the same way...
"People think we're becoming a Third World country," says a Los Angeles County court reporter. "We are on the verge of system failure," warns the executive director of the California Budget Project.

"California's fiscal hole is now so large," The Globe and Mail further adds, "that the state would have to liberate 168,000 prison inmates and permanently shutter 240 university and community college campuses to balance its budget."

And listen: The debt problem is not limited to one or two states... it's nationwide! BusinessWeek describes the situation as "red ink, from sea to shining sea."

Forty-eight states face budget shortfalls this year. Many shortfalls amount to more than 20% of planned spending. The plunge in state tax revenue is the worst on record. …”

From: https://reports.insidersstrategygro...?o=776813&s=781921&u=40779324&l=461661&r=Milo (Dark days ahead section)

 

[Billy T]

$50 K Day has already past!

It came up quicker than I expected (Now each man, woman child citizen owes $50,842) See all the details at: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Currently Federal deficit (for this fiscal year, I think) is greater than 1.2 trillion dollars and rapidly climbing.

"... The United States Department of Treasury will reach the the statutory limit it is allowed to borrow money before election day, according to a new study by Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., former director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. ...

Portman's office notes that according to Obama's budget, total debt subject to the statutory debt will reach limit will reach $16.334 trillion by September 30, 2012. This is just $60 billion below the 16,394,000,000,000 debt limit. Since the federal government is adding to the national debt at a rate of $132 billion a month, the debt ceiling is on schedule to be reached by October 15, 2012. ..." From: http://washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-...ore-election-day/article/1129291#.UC0fmaDPUY4

Billy T comment:Interesting times indeed! If they can not pay to count the votes, why hold the election? This experiment with democracy was interesting. Too bad the poorly educated voters chose the "enjoy benefits now and send the bill to our kids" plan.

With food prices rising faster than incomes and about 50 thousand Americans already on food stamps (but debt limited Treasury not able to credit their accounts or send out the Social Security checks many others buy their food with) Marshall law will be needed to control food riots, etc. Perhaps it would be better to just abolish the failed "democratic" government system and move directly into a Military dictatorship?

 

[Billy T]

From John Thomas at www.madhedgefundtrader.com, here is how in concept one gets to the balanced budget:

Increase of Revenue in billions by:

250 from end of home mortgage interest deductions
200 from end of deductions for gift to charities
264 from disallow companies to deduct their health care contributions
211 from higher tax rates on people and companies.
100 from end of many corporate tax "loop holes"
055 from end of oil depletion allowances
020 from end of Agricultural subsidies

Plus reduction of expenditures:
400 reductions in the military funds
Raise Social Security retirement age to 77.

That impossible plan gets the current 1.5 trillion deficits to end (If you can believe in fantasies.) but as Ex president Clinton said: "You can´t balance the budget in a busted economy" Also as congressional Democrats and Republicans hold firm, waiting for the other “to cave in and face reality,” the US falls over the Fiscal Cliff.

As thread says: Stand by for more worse news (from Europe, most likely)

PS do you know the main difference between Reagan and Bush 1 ? No? well Reagan increased US debt by 4 billion by borrowing from Japan and Bush 1 increased US debt another 4 billion by borrowing from China.
.

 

[Billy T]

“.. In 2011, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was 8.1 percent less than in 2007, the year before the recession began. “Even though the recovery has been slow, the economy has been expanding,” said Melissa Boteach, who coordinates an effort to cut U.S. poverty in half in 10 years … “The gains from the economic growth have not reached working families struggling at the bottom.”

The U.S. Census Bureau released figures today that showed household income fell, underscoring a sputtering economic recovery that’s at the heart of the presidential campaign. The proportion of people living in poverty was 15 percent in 2011, little changed from 15.1 percent in 2010, while median household income dropped 1.5 percent. The 46.2 million people living in poverty remained at the highest level in the 53 years since the Census Bureau has been collecting that statistic. ...”

Rate of purchasing power drop is now 1.5% per year and in the last five years 8.1%, not the 7.2% I have quoted in many posts.

“..Jobless claims increased 15,000 in the week ended Sept. 8, the biggest gain in almost two months, to 382,000, Labor Department figures showed today. … The job market is cooling as a global slowdown and looming U.S. tax policy changes keep businesses hesitant about hiring. ..”

Billy T comment: Do you remember: the Fiscal Cliff OR need for new debt ceiling by end of 2012 OR election uncertainty OR uncertainty about EU {especially will Greece meet conditions for next parcel of bailout} OR Impact of FED´s new 40 billion buying per month of toxic trash (Freddy & Fanny May´s holdings) OR dropping purchasing power of the shrinking middle class OR roll back or not of GWB´s tax relief for the very rich (also known as the “creators of Asian job and destroyers of US jobs” in no longer competitive factories) OR sinking value of the dollar OR 1.5 trillion annual increases in US debt OR growing list of cities going bankrupt OR new “don´t buy American” boycott in Arab lands OR the growing student college debts with few good jobs when graduating OR possible of minor hot war over some above water rocks in S. China Sea. OR unpunished corruption on Wall Street OR big corporation´s tax loopholes that let them pay no taxes (GE for one) of at least pay their CEOs more than Uncle Sam. Plus with sinking US influence in the world and a deadlocked Congress, not much hope any of this will change.

 

[Billy T]

".. The Fed has already held interest rates near zero percent for four long years, now.

It has already created $1.8 trillion out of thin air through QE I and QE II ...

And it has already bought hundreds of billions of dollars more long-term Treasuries as part of Operation Twist 1 and 2.

So what's the result? No impact whatsoever on the real economy!

Sure — all that free, easy money can temporarily lift the stock market. But despite everything the Fed has done ...

Unemployment has stayed over 8% for 42 straight months ...

The average family home is still falling in value ...

U.S. economic growth is still grinding to a near standstill ...

And now, as America approaches the precipice of its great fiscal cliff, the stock market looks for all the world as if it's a massive bubble about to burst! ..'

Billy T comment: As Einstein once noted: Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

At least this latest flood of thin air money (480 billion dollars per year, which is a slightly faster rate than the prior 1.8 trillion over four years, or same if purchasing power is counted) will make it more likely that my long ago predicted "run on the dollar" will occur on or before Halloween 2014, which is 25 months or 1 trillion more of thin air money added from now. (40Billion x 25 = 1 trillion).

 

[quadraphonics]

At least this latest flood of thin air money (480 billion dollars per year, which is a slightly faster rate than the prior 1.8 trillion over four years, or same if purchasing power is counted) will make it more likely that my long ago predicted "run on the dollar" will occur on or before Halloween 2014, which is 25 months or 1 trillion more of thin air money added from now. (40Billion x 25 = 1 trillion).

You have never specified any mechansim by which QE is supposed to result in such an outcome. When asked directly, the mechanism you cited had to do with the Fed ceasing loose money policies at some future date, and the resulting spike in interest rates causing a bond market panic. According to that explanation, further extensions of loose monetary policy - now stated to continue well into 2015 - move the putative bond market panic farther into the future, not closer to the present. Before that, you used to invoke a currency attack by a hostile China, although you seem to have dropped that explanation some time ago. At other points, it appears that you have yet other, not-entirely-specified mechanisms in mind.

It seems that the reason your predictions never change is that they are not based on any particular hypothesized mechanism linking actual trends and data to the outcome. You simply trumpet any data (or, more frequently, anecdotes and misrepresentations) that sound negative for the USA, and then blithely assert that these bolster your top-line predictions about American economic demise. And while you are given to congratulating yourself on the insight and saliency of your analysis, you never actually specify how it works or demonstrate how data does (or does not, it seems) affect it. Occasionally, you will speculate on some half-baked mechanism but, as mentioned above, this never goes anywhere in particular and typically just gets quietly discarded some weeks later. After years of this, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no real middle to your argument at all, just a shifting string of half-baked insinuations used as tactics to distract from challenges, the better to resume your program of trumpetting anything that sounds negative about the USA (soda consumption! national debt! video games! teens having sex!) and then triumphantly proclaiming that such validates your predictions and, thereby, the validity of your unstated economic theories. In short, you are a crusty old curmudgeon who is out to vent tired, predictable cultural complaints (the nostalgia for the putative golden age that just so happens to correspond with your own youth is visible throughout), and for whatever reason tries to sublimate that whole discourse into a charade of a macroeconomic analysis.

My advice is to just admit what you're about, quit the whole tactic of pretending that it's economics, and instead resign yourself to writing culutral jeremiads about how lazy and divided by class Americans are. That way you can say all the stuff you want to say, without having to drag the business and economics forum down into the gutter, and those of us who are serious about economics can try to build a useful discourse in place of your campaign of mapping the inside of your own ass.

 

[Billy T]

You have never specified any mechansim by which QE is supposed to result in such an outcome. When asked directly, the mechanism you cited had to do with the Fed ceasing loose money policies at some future date, and the resulting spike in interest rates causing a bond market panic. According to that explanation, further extensions of loose monetary policy - now stated to continue well into 2015 - move the putative bond market panic farther into the future, not closer to the present. Before that, you used to invoke a currency attack by a hostile China, although you seem to have dropped that explanation some time ago. At other points, it appears that you have yet other, not-entirely-specified mechanisms in mind.

It seems that the reason your predictions never change is that they are not based on any particular hypothesized mechanism linking actual trends and data to the outcome. You simply trumpet any data (or, more frequently, anecdotes and misrepresentations) that sound negative for the USA, and then blithely assert that these bolster your top-line predictions about American economic demise. And while you are given to congratulating yourself on the insight and saliency of your analysis, you never actually specify how it works or demonstrate how data does (or does not, it seems) affect it. Occasionally, you will speculate on some half-baked mechanism but, as mentioned above, this never goes anywhere in particular and typically just gets quietly discarded some weeks later. After years of this, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no real middle to your argument at all, just a shifting string of half-baked insinuations used as tactics to distract from challenges, the better to resume your program of trumpetting anything that sounds negative about the USA ...

In several post over the years I have admitted that I don´t know what will be the trigger of the run on the dollar. Usually I do give an example or two.

You are 100% correct to say: "the reason your predictions never change is that they are not based on any particular hypothesized mechanism"
for example:
It could be major unresolved Congressional problem like not raising the debt limit, OR
Oil producers issuing barrels of oil certificates that take the place of the re-cycled PetroDollar system, OR
Endless flood of thin air dollars printed that destroys confidence in the dollar OR
Yellowstone "super volcano" blowing up OR
FED stopping to hold interest rates at historic lows and letting them rise to noramal risk ajusted values like 8+% on the 10 year bond - killi ng the economy in these uncertain times OR
Collapse of the club med euro member states OR
China backing the bonds it lets the IMF and central banks hold with say 10,000 oz of gold on the face value dollar amount (making them the most attractive store of value for central banks) OR
China increasing significantly the net redemption of Treasury bonds, that driving down prices and scaring other to get out before their losses increase more OR
Israel attacking Iran with war spreading and Straight of Hormuz blocked by sunken tankers driving oil to > $1000 / barrel OR
Food prices doubling with continued (global warming caused?) droughts and riots in many counties, including the US, OR
Iran´s new policy of selling oil, (at greater than last year rate, BTW) for gold or barter spreading to other counties (Kuait already does that) OR
Shiite Sunni war that stops Saudi oil production or export with terminals destroyed OR ...

As you can see, there are many possible triggers for my predicted run on the dollar. So many that some one or two are quite likely IMHO to happen before Halloween 2014. That is why I don´t change the 6+ year old forecast - it seems to be coming true on schedule. Yes it is true, I post almost daily some more bad news as many prefer the ostrich approach instead of think about possible unpleasant consequences of the downward evolving global and US economies and the shrinking size (and individual buying power) of the middle class, rapid rise in the US debts etc.

 

[Billy T]

"... Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced, "We no longer anticipate votes in the House during the week of Oct. 1." ..."

Billy T comment:So the uncertainty over the "fiscal cliff" continues to suppress new hiring, investments etc. until after the elections when perhaps the Congress with "lame duck" members may act. During that same period the debt ceiling will be hit, probably with same stagnation of conflicting political interest as last time.

My bet is that the best they can (or more accurately will) do is kick the can down the road at least until June of 1013 by changing the date when the spending cuts and tax increases occur. That is to say: "The western world is now governed by expert can kickers."

 

[quadraphonics]

In several post over the years I have admitted that I don´t know what will be the trigger of the run on the dollar.

[...]

You are 100% correct to say: "the reason your predictions never change is that they are not based on any particular hypothesized mechanism"

So you admit that you have no specific, testable predictions that we could use to validate or discredit your top-line predictions, nor do you even posit any particular theory that relates the various quantities you throw around. In other words, you are not presenting us with science or considered predictions, but simply throwing around wild speculations without bothering to do any serious analysis of them. Instead, you dream up lists of scary worst-case scenarios and go around selectively trumpetting any news that sounds frightening. All of which is to say that you are a bullshit artist, and not a genuine economist or political analyst. The only hard, fixed part of your output is your total certainty that your doomsday predictions will necessarily, somehow come to pass and validate your righteousness; everything else is malleable or discardable.

 

[Billy T]

So you admit that you have no specific, testable predictions that we could use to validate or discredit your top-line predictions, nor do you even posit any particular theory that relates the various quantities you throw around. In other words, you are not presenting us with science or considered predictions, but simply throwing around wild speculations without bothering to do any serious analysis of them. ..

Obviously my prediction of anything "on or before Halloween 2014" cannot now be "testable."

I have also noted that the exact date set 6+ years ago cannot be expected to to be perfectly firm, in part for the reason you note and I agree with. - I.e. there are many possible triggers for the run on the dollar that will soon (less than half a year, I would estimate) be followed by "world´s worst ever" depression. I did do considerable analysis when setting that date and told you more than half a dozen factors in an earlier post when you asked how / why that date was chosen.

Three of the most important factors were the very predictable number of "baby boomers" who would switch from their peak earning and tax paying years to be collectors of social security to become a significant new strain on the government´s budget; AND the growing number of college-graduating, debt-laden Americans not able to find good jobs or afford the house they bought with falsely easy credit; AND the rapidly growing annual federal deficits (now ~1.5 trillion) with its compounding interest would also strain the federal budget. I still think the Fed´s capacity to buy US Treasury bonds* is limited by the fear that it mainly doing so (as is now the case) will generate fear in other investors and drive interest rates up, making the deficit finance problem much greater well before Halloween 2014, but we must wait to see if I called it correctly or not 6+ years ago.

* And that "prediction" does seem to be somewhat validated by "QE infinity" not doing so, but by buying up the toxic trash held mainly by Freddy & Fanny May and interest rates are it appears starting to rise.

 

[Billy T]

From IMF in Tokyo:

".. “We’re awfully close” to a global recession, said Fischer, 69, who served as the IMF’s No. 2 official from 1994 to 2001 and was thesis adviser to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Fischer’s take on global growth added to concern raised at annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund, with the IMF cutting its forecasts on Oct. 9 and warning of more weakness unless the U.S. and Europe address threats to their economies. As the euro crisis drags on, fiscal tightening and muted demand in wealthy nations hurts emerging countries from China to Brazil..."

But don´t be worried: Quadraphonics say these ideas are just: "wild speculations without bothering to do any serious analysis of them."

 

[Billy T]

Is you kid soon a college grad? Are your parents retired? Chances are you be seeing more of them:

".. Almost a third of homeowners expect their grown children or aging parents to eventually move in with them, according to a survey by one of the nation's largest home builders. About one in seven say they already have a "boomerang kid" — an adult child who moves back home — or elderly parent living under their roof.

The survey out Wednesday of more than 1,000 homeowners by PulteGroup, builder of everything from starter homes to upscale residences and Del Webb adult communities, shows that the rise in multi-generational households may continue.

"It's an enormous change," says Stephen Melman, director of economic services at the National Association of Home Builders. "I remember when I was in college, no one wanted to be near their parents."

A Pew Research report earlier this year showed that the share of Americans living in multi-generational households is at its highest since the 1950s. Young adults ages 25 to 34 are most likely to return to the nest. Almost 22% of young adults were living at home in 2010, up from 16% in 2000 and rising the most since the recession that began in 2007 and technically ended in 2009. .."

 

[Billy T]

Not If, but When ("on or before Halloween 2014" I predicted 7 years ago):

".. Bernanke’s plan here is to maintain a steady rate of inflation offset by mild deflation — however, it’s all hanging by a thread ... All it takes for the financial system to fall apart is investors realizing just how broke the U.S. is right now. The current belief is that America is better off than Europe. ...

Consider this: Ireland’s debt only amounts to about to $176 billion. Spain’s is $766 billion. And Greece’s is $399 billion. The combined debt of these countries doesn’t even equal a tenth of the U.S. debt at a jaw-dropping $16 trillion.

When investors realize that, you’ll see the dollar tank ...