Sunday, June 02, 2024

What happens to a country with $23 trillions in debt when it encounters political instability?

Profile photo for Bob Melcher

We do not know. There is no similar model, so this situation is outside the realm of predictability. A year’s GDP in debt for a major power is so unusual (Post WWII) that we can only guess.

Guess:

We might be able to use the fall of the British Empire as a model. The Pound Sterling was the preferred reserve currency across the globe, but when Britain lost India, the Pound was supported by a much smaller economy, with reserves being redeemed for real goods. Paper that had been “printed” months, years to almost a century earlier suddenly had to be honored for real goods that had to be created today. In a few decades the Pound fell in value by a factor of 4 creating 15 or so years of a moribund economy.

$23 trillion at 3% is supported by $690 billion dollars, or 3.5% of GDP. The same debt at 8%, which was the 30 year T-bill rate from 1977 to 1995 (5% minimum to 14% maximum) costs 1.84 trillion per year to support, or 9.2% of GDP. That’s more than all discretionary government spending ($1.4 trillion) and almost half of all current Government revenue. It would be a big hit. We would have to cut roughly a trillion dollars, or 71% of all discretionary spending.

How do Interest rates get from 3% to 8%? Interest rates are the acceptable cost of money plus a factor for risk. In 2010, people invested in no-risk devices that lost them a few tenths of a percentage point per year to avoid the 10 and 20% losses of other seemingly sound investments. So there was a negative risk factor for T-bills. In any other situation there would be a positive risk factor, which increases interest rates.

Risk factors involve loss of confidence and, for example, are:

  • Inflation
  • Dollar falling out of favor as a reserve currency
  • Political upheaval if it affects the economy (trade war)
  • Large war
  • Big recession
  • Incompetent fiscal management

What would happen:

Were there to be a loss of confidence in the dollar, then government borrowing would become more expensive. More expensive borrowing is not an answer to that cost; “printing” money is not an answer to that and there isn’t enough spending to cut to cover it.

So we would face inflation, and the victim would be people on fixed income. ie: old people and disabled people.

The economy would go flat or worse for decades and we would never regain our footing as the primary economic leader.

Complete disaster!

So the debt level needs to reduce NOW in terms of days of GDP (economic growth reduces debt as a ratio of economic activity).

Saturday, June 01, 2024

The incredible story of Lucy and Panda

A dog named Lucy was hit by a train and left lying on the tracks. She was unable to move due to her injuries, but she was not alone. Another dog, Panda, stayed by her side.

According to Denis Malafeyev, the man who saved the two animals, every time a train approached, Panda would curl up on the tracks next to Lucy and lower his body as low as he could so that they would not be hit.

In this way, the companions faced death many times. Until they met a human who would save their lives for good.

On Christmas Day 2016, Denis received a call from friends who had seen the dogs on the train line. He rushed to the scene and found that Panda was not only protecting his injured friend from the trains, but from anyone who came too close. "Several attempts to remove the animal from the track were in vain, because the dog strongly defended her from us," Malafeyev wrote on Facebook.

In this way, the man was forced to watch the same terrifying scene repeat itself: a train approaching and Panda pushing Lucy's head down low enough to avoid being hit. "He warmed her for hours and put himself in danger every time."

Denis, who often helps animals in distress, was finally able to gain Panda's trust and get close enough to pick Lucy up off the tracks. But of course there was one condition: Panda accompanied the entire journey alongside his companion.

Once again the two kept warm, but this time from the trunk of Denis' car, as he drove them to a local shelter. It was there that the dogs received the medical attention they needed.

"It's great to think about animals," Malafeyev said . But he quickly gives credit where credit is due. "This is not my heroism. It is Panda's."

Conclusion:

The story of Panda and Lucy is a heartwarming tale of friendship and loyalty. It is a reminder that even in the most difficult of circumstances, there is always hope.

The case of Alice Guo

The mayor of a city in the Philippines, Alice Guo, has come under fire in recent weeks. Guo had presented herself as “half-Chinese”, the daughter of a Filipina mother and a Chinese-Filipino immigrant father. Turns out, she has likely been lying and she may never have been Filipino at all.

There are no records of Alice Guo being born anywhere in the Philippines. Her father turned out to be a Chinese citizen, not a Filipino citizen at all. And the woman claimed to be her Filipina mother (a maid) wasn’t… the whole thing seems to have been a charade. It’s a wild story. Because one cannot be foreign-born and run for office. So if it was discovered Guo is, in fact, not a Filipina, she’d be removed from her post as mayor.

 She insists she is a “love child” but media and political adversaries are calling her a “Chinese spy”.

Alice Guo has been linked to illegal casinos, offshore gambling and even a human trafficking ring. Authorities believe she may be a Chinese ‘sleeper agent’.

 China and the Philippines have had a lot of geopolitical tensions over the South China Sea and to infiltrate a foreign adversary isn’t the type of tactic Beijng would shy away from.

It’s a fascinating case. Is Alice Guo who she says she is, or is she not? And if not… why did she lie about her ethnicity and nationality? Common concensus in the Philippines now seems to be that she may be a Chinese spy. She’s under police investigation as we speak.

Footnotes

The Danger of Obstinacy

June 1, 2024
Memorial of Saint Justin, Martyr

Readings for Today
Readings for Saturday of the Eighth Week in Ordinary Time


Video

“I shall ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was John’s baptism of heavenly or of human origin?  Answer me.” Mark 11:29–30

This is Jesus’ response to the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders when they approached Jesus in the Temple area and asked Him by what authority He did the things He did. And what was it that Jesus did? The day before, Jesus had been in the Temple and drove the money changers out, telling them, “Is it not written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples’? But you have made it a den of thieves.” This outraged the religious leaders, and they immediately began to discuss how they could put Jesus to death.

Consider, first, the tension in the air. They literally were plotting to put Jesus, the Son of God, to death. They were filled with hatred and jealousy and refused to believe in Him. Jesus saw their hardness of heart and put them on the spot to first answer His question before He would answer theirs. Why would Jesus do this?

The question Jesus asked them was actually an act of great mercy on His part. He gave them an opportunity to repent. If they had only answered His question with humble faith and honesty, they could have saved their lives. Instead, they discussed among themselves His question and gave the politically correct answer. If they had said John’s baptism was of human origin, and not from God, they were afraid that the people would turn on them. So they simply said, “We do not know.” But imagine if they would have given the right answer. What if they had discussed it among themselves and concluded that John’s baptism truly was from God and that they should have believed in him? If they would have only humbled themselves, admitted that they had gravely erred in regard to John, then Jesus would have answered their question, and their life of true faith could have begun. But they didn’t. They remained obstinate. They could not admit they were wrong.

Obstinacy is among the most dangerous of sins. It’s a sin that cannot be forgiven, because, in essence, it’s a refusal to change. And when a person refuses to admit their sin, and refuses to change, then God cannot help them. They remain lost in their sin and suffer the consequences.

Do you struggle with obstinacy in your life? Do you find it difficult to admit when you are wrong? Do you find it difficult to apologize to another and seek to change?

Reflect, today, upon anything you remain obstinate about. Are there matters of faith that you refuse to believe? Are there broken relationships that you refuse to humbly restore? Do you justify your sin and refuse to admit your guilt and need to change? Pray to our Lord for the gift of a humble heart. Humility, in many ways, is nothing other than being completely honest with yourself and others before God. Do not follow the example of these religious leaders. Humbly seek to remove all obstinacy from your heart so that Our Lord can enter in and bring His mercy into your life.

My unwavering Jesus, You confront those who are proud, arrogant and obstinate with much strength and love. You do so to help them overcome their stubbornness of heart. Give me the grace of humility, dear Lord, so that I will always be able to admit my sin and turn to You in love. Jesus, I trust in You.

In what ways is the 'Palestinian Lost Land' over the years picture accurate?

Icon for on Diplomacy & Warfare

I assume you’re referring the the Palestinian propaganda meme with the four maps.

There’s another meme that explains how it lies.

There never was a state of Palestine. During the 400 years of Ottoman rule that ended with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region looked like this:

The entire region was a group of administrative districts (Sanjaks), overseen by regional administrations (Vilayets), with the exception of the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, which was directly subordinate to the Sultanate in Constantinople (now Istanbul).

There is no “Palestinian lost land” because there never was a Palestine to lose any land. At the end of the Mandate for Palestine, British land registries show that 76% of the land was state land that could only be leased, not purchased. The remaining 24% was divided more or less equally at 8% for each of the following groups: Absentee owners living outside the Mandate for Palestine, Arab clans living in the Mandate for Palestine and Jews living in the Mandate.

Now for the REAL shocker: the Mandate for Palestine west of the Jordan River makes up only 22% of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The area defined by the San Remo Conference of 1920.

In 1922, in order to bribe Abdullah bin al-Hussein not to take the Iraqi throne from his brother Faisal after Abdullah failed in his attempt to take the crown of the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia, ruled by the ibn Saud clan), Great Britain chopped off 77% of the Mandate and created the Emirate of Transjordan (now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) in violation of the conditions of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

A year later, the British again violated the terms of the Mandate by ceding the Golan Heights to the French-held Mandate for Syria/Lebanon, leaving this as the area the Palestinians are now calling “historical Palestine” — 22% of the mandate land area.

“Art. 5: The Mandatory [Great Britain] shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

The Palestine Mandate
The Palestine Mandate The Palestine Mandate The Council of the League of Nations: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations , to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 , by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations; confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows: The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part

In 1947, the UN proposed and passed General Assembly Resolution 181 for the Partition of Palestine, further reducing the 22% intended for the Jewish homeland to a bare 11.5%, with more than half the area allocated to the “Jewish state” being the Negev Desert..

So, in the long run, 88.5% of the original Mandate for Palestine wasn’t enough for the Arabs, and they attempted multiple times to destroy the “Jewish state” mentioned no less than 30 times in UNGAR 181, while failing to declare the Arab state” mentioned 22 times in the same resolution.

In short, there is no “Palestinian Lost Land” because there never was any Palestinian land in the first place.