Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

NY Times on 38 Studios

NYTimes.com offers "Curt Schilling, Rhode Island and the Fall of 38 Studios," a very lengthy and detailed look at the startup studio that ended up costing baseball star Curt Schilling and the state of Rhode Island a lot of money. Nobody comes out looking too good after all this, as the article details the naïveté of game development neophyte Schilling taking on the most ambitious type of game in undertaking an MMORPG, and the sketchy history of politics in Rhode Island ("Rhode Islanders are used to being played by their politicians. What makes them cringe is the suspicion that virtually all their elected leaders might have been played by someone else."). They touch on an interstate rivalry with Massachusetts which played a part in Rhode Island's overreach here, and the behind-the-scenes machinations to facilitate the state's hefty loan to the company, which prompted the one dissenting voter to say: "Scandal finds money." The article is filled with detail on problems inherent in this situation, such as 38 Studios needing to control costs at the same time they were trying to live up to the pumped-up promise that they would bring new jobs to the state and how former 38 Studios CEO Brett Close urged releasing Amalur in smaller phases, rather than "trying to build the skyscraper horizontally and then standing it up." They sum up the current legal proceedings between Rhode Island and Schilling, and offer this interesting take: "At bottom, 38 Studios may be that rare political scandal that grew not from any lies that anyone told the public, but from the stories that desperate politicians told themselves." Thanks nin via Kotaku.

View
50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

50. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 17:31 RollinThundr
 
BitWraith wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 08:50:
There's a reason why educated people tend to be liberal. It's because they're educated.

When most of the professors are liberals what do you think they're going to teach students? Conservative values, or make white kids feel shame about being white like at the University of Wisconsin? No liberals are no smarter than anyone else, they just think they're morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 08:50 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 20:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:47:
That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.

Guess you missed the part where it said....

"Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans."

That's entirely indicative of ALL lobbying by the elites. It's all right there in black and white and you're still not grasping it, huh? Wow. Just boggles the mind.

Um, Exxon doesn't account for every company in the world. You're misreading your own quote sparky.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 08:50 BitWraith
 

There's a reason why educated people tend to be liberal. It's because they're educated.
 
Avatar 57722
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 23, 2013, 07:13 Redmask
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 20:06:
That's entirely indicative of ALL lobbying by the elites.

Uh, says who? No, it's not there in black and white, that's a single industry who have a history of understanding that liberals are not friendly towards their environmental approaches. Post something to back up your claim that a majority of lobbies are Republican oriented.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 20:33 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 20:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:47:
That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.



No I didn't miss that part at all, but what I said went right over your head. Democrats get plenty of lobbying from various groups and corps as well. Pretending they cater to no special interest groups is absolutely comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 20:06 Cutter
 
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:47:
That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.

Guess you missed the part where it said....

"Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans."

That's entirely indicative of ALL lobbying by the elites. It's all right there in black and white and you're still not grasping it, huh? Wow. Just boggles the mind.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 18:47 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 18:26:
Here's what the GOP does for the elites versus the working stiffs....

Exxon/Chevron's record profits

While 2012 might not be a banner year for Big Oil profits, it wasn’t a bad one either. With just BP left to announce 2012 earnings, Big Oil earned well over $100 billion in profits last year, while the companies benefit from continued taxpayer subsidies. Average gas prices also hit a record high last year, showing how a drilling boom may help oil companies’ profit margins, but not consumers’ wallets.

ExxonMobil — now the most valuable company in the world, passing Apple — earned $45 billion profit in 2012, a 9 percent jump over 2011. Meanwhile, Chevron earned $26.2 billion for the year. In the final three months of the year, the companies earned $9.95 billion and $7.2 billion respectively.

Here are the highlights of how Exxon and Chevron spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil

Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

Exxon’s oil production was down 6 percent from 2011.

In fourth quarter, Exxon bought back $5.3 billion of its stock, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.

Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans.

The company spent $12.97 million lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Exxon is moving ahead with a project to develop the tar sands in Canada.

Chevron:

In October, Chevron made the single-largest corporate donation in history. Chevron dropped $2.5 million with the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC to elect House Republicans.

The bulk of Chevron’s federal contributions came from the super PAC donation, for a total of $3.87 million for the 2012 cycle. 85 percent went to Republicans.

Chevron spent $9.55 million lobbying Congress in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chevron paid 19 percent U.S. taxes last year (half of the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent), and received an estimated $700 million in annual tax breaks last year.

Chevron was fined $1 million for a refinery fire that sent 15,000 Richmond, California residents to the hospital. Though the company faces $10 million in medical expenses, Chevron earns it back in a couple of hours.

With Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips reporting $35 billion in combined profit in 2012, BP is the last company left to announce its profits for the year.

That you continue to pretend democrats don't get their share of lobbying is comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 18:33 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:38:
Certainly cuts should be made, but they should be made not because of the debt or deficit, they should be made because they're just downright wasteful. Bloated military programs that continue for years or decades without any progress, for example. Subsidies to businesses that are reaping record profits (and have been for decades). But we need to spend more in other areas also in order to keep up growth long term. We have to improve our education system and that costs money no matter which way you look at it. Certainly lots of things we're doing now aren't effective, but they don't change by having less money available in the system as a whole. Likewise expanding infrastructure spending saves money and generates revenues in the long term. We need a high-speed transit system that is affordable and efficient. Maintaining the highways is extremely expensive and has a lot of secondary costs that go with it. (real) High speed rail with dedicated right-of-ways would benefit freight and personal transit. It doesn't have to be like Amtrak which is a dying relic. It can be faster, cheaper, and easier, but we have to invest now. And finally we need to fix our power infrastructure. Dependence on oil and coal is crippling us and will be the weight around our neck that sinks us. We need to stop funding them and make sure functional alternatives are in place. Solar (PV and thermal) is viable, even at current efficiencies. (Current technology) Nuclear is safer and ultimately cheaper as a provider for base-loads, but we have to get rid of the NIMBY attitude and approach it rationally, not as a favor to industry pals.

More and better health care reform would have a significant effect as the cost of it is far too high and the ACA doesn't actually deal with that in a meaningful way. The key problem is the insurance companies have every incentive for prices to go up and such make no effort at controlling them. This forces people into a Faustian bargain where they must take insurance to avoid paying the rate-sheet prices but are still being charged 10x - 100x more than the services actually cost to provide. On top of that the insurance industry adds a "moving money around, but mostly into our pocket" tax for facilitating the transaction. A single payer public system would be able to control prices and would cost *substantially* less than both what we're paying now in total as a society AND less than just what we pay into Medicare now. To cover everyone in the country. This means a lot more money to spend on real goods and services instead of invented schemes that add zero value. Providers would compete on service and people would have real, open choices as to who to visit for their care.

But a lot of this doesn't really mean much or have a chance of happening if wages aren't raised to match the increase in productivity over the last 30 - 40 years. For decades wage levels followed closely to productivity increases, and then in the 70's "magically" stopped. Productivity increased greatly but wages stagnated. If wages were closer to what they should be relative to productivity the tax base would increase immensely and we'd almost certainly have a surplus even at current tax and spending levels. But as it is now, the majority of people (in the "developed" world and the US) have less and less money to spend each year which means businesses have fewer customers and are more likely to go out of business. This ultimately shrinks the economy and puts on a path of ruin. When most people have no money to spend on anything but food and shelter, any business that doesn't go directly to that will be unsustainable. When most people start having to choose between food and shelter, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot more riots and violence which does good for no one.

/rant

Well when we stop focusing on bullying and social issues in schools and start teaching kids basic reading, math, etc, we'll improve in that regard, it's not money. Schools get plenty of it, and they are extremely efficient at taking the money they get and spending it on things they don't need. It's more so the absolute ineptness and quality of teachers and college professors who are more interested in indoctrinating kids into being liberals than actually teaching them anything.

I agree healthcare reform was needed, instead what we got was an utter abuse of the commerce clause and an unconstitutional health care bill that will end up costing everyone more for health insurance across the board. Yay for progress?

Perhaps if we stopped printing money like the world was going to end tomorrow, raises in the costs of living would match what people are actually earning. Not that I don't think wage increases aren't needed, they certainly are. But there are reasons inflation is at the level it is.

There are areas that have already spent millions building high speed transit, guess what? No one uses it. Which goes back to the whole spending for the sake of spending. Politicians love spending money, especially when it isn't theirs.

This comment was edited on Apr 22, 2013, 18:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 18:26 Cutter
 
Here's what the GOP does for the elites versus the working stiffs....

Exxon/Chevron's record profits

While 2012 might not be a banner year for Big Oil profits, it wasn’t a bad one either. With just BP left to announce 2012 earnings, Big Oil earned well over $100 billion in profits last year, while the companies benefit from continued taxpayer subsidies. Average gas prices also hit a record high last year, showing how a drilling boom may help oil companies’ profit margins, but not consumers’ wallets.

ExxonMobil — now the most valuable company in the world, passing Apple — earned $45 billion profit in 2012, a 9 percent jump over 2011. Meanwhile, Chevron earned $26.2 billion for the year. In the final three months of the year, the companies earned $9.95 billion and $7.2 billion respectively.

Here are the highlights of how Exxon and Chevron spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil

Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

Exxon’s oil production was down 6 percent from 2011.

In fourth quarter, Exxon bought back $5.3 billion of its stock, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.

Exxon’s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans.

The company spent $12.97 million lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Exxon is moving ahead with a project to develop the tar sands in Canada.

Chevron:

In October, Chevron made the single-largest corporate donation in history. Chevron dropped $2.5 million with the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC to elect House Republicans.

The bulk of Chevron’s federal contributions came from the super PAC donation, for a total of $3.87 million for the 2012 cycle. 85 percent went to Republicans.

Chevron spent $9.55 million lobbying Congress in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chevron paid 19 percent U.S. taxes last year (half of the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent), and received an estimated $700 million in annual tax breaks last year.

Chevron was fined $1 million for a refinery fire that sent 15,000 Richmond, California residents to the hospital. Though the company faces $10 million in medical expenses, Chevron earns it back in a couple of hours.

With Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips reporting $35 billion in combined profit in 2012, BP is the last company left to announce its profits for the year.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:50 TurdFergasun
 
Julio wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:36:
LittleMe wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:22:
The Chinese and many other countries own a huge amount of our debt.

Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:24:
8%. China has 8% of our debt.

And other countries besides China own another 38% or so of the US debt. Not that I'm agreeing with LittleMe on why our manufacturing base is moving to China. To me, it's a matter of corporations offshoring to increase profits, and consumers not caring where they buy from. There's a large amount of people buying non-US cars, they don't care if they buy goods from China either.

Whenever this much money vanishes, I still think it's worth an investigation to see if any of it stuck to Curt or the politicians' hands.

the free market only comes into play when it's advantageous to big business in the western world, it's free market hard knocks for everyone else when it doesn't suit the old boys. It's easy to continuously shift labor to markets where labor is cheaper, and a lot of times is maintained cheaper as a result of a massive lobbying force pushing for legislation to keep it that way. The only thing free about our market is the loyalty it's minions continue to shower upon it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:38 m00t
 
Certainly cuts should be made, but they should be made not because of the debt or deficit, they should be made because they're just downright wasteful. Bloated military programs that continue for years or decades without any progress, for example. Subsidies to businesses that are reaping record profits (and have been for decades). But we need to spend more in other areas also in order to keep up growth long term. We have to improve our education system and that costs money no matter which way you look at it. Certainly lots of things we're doing now aren't effective, but they don't change by having less money available in the system as a whole. Likewise expanding infrastructure spending saves money and generates revenues in the long term. We need a high-speed transit system that is affordable and efficient. Maintaining the highways is extremely expensive and has a lot of secondary costs that go with it. (real) High speed rail with dedicated right-of-ways would benefit freight and personal transit. It doesn't have to be like Amtrak which is a dying relic. It can be faster, cheaper, and easier, but we have to invest now. And finally we need to fix our power infrastructure. Dependence on oil and coal is crippling us and will be the weight around our neck that sinks us. We need to stop funding them and make sure functional alternatives are in place. Solar (PV and thermal) is viable, even at current efficiencies. (Current technology) Nuclear is safer and ultimately cheaper as a provider for base-loads, but we have to get rid of the NIMBY attitude and approach it rationally, not as a favor to industry pals.

More and better health care reform would have a significant effect as the cost of it is far too high and the ACA doesn't actually deal with that in a meaningful way. The key problem is the insurance companies have every incentive for prices to go up and such make no effort at controlling them. This forces people into a Faustian bargain where they must take insurance to avoid paying the rate-sheet prices but are still being charged 10x - 100x more than the services actually cost to provide. On top of that the insurance industry adds a "moving money around, but mostly into our pocket" tax for facilitating the transaction. A single payer public system would be able to control prices and would cost *substantially* less than both what we're paying now in total as a society AND less than just what we pay into Medicare now. To cover everyone in the country. This means a lot more money to spend on real goods and services instead of invented schemes that add zero value. Providers would compete on service and people would have real, open choices as to who to visit for their care.

But a lot of this doesn't really mean much or have a chance of happening if wages aren't raised to match the increase in productivity over the last 30 - 40 years. For decades wage levels followed closely to productivity increases, and then in the 70's "magically" stopped. Productivity increased greatly but wages stagnated. If wages were closer to what they should be relative to productivity the tax base would increase immensely and we'd almost certainly have a surplus even at current tax and spending levels. But as it is now, the majority of people (in the "developed" world and the US) have less and less money to spend each year which means businesses have fewer customers and are more likely to go out of business. This ultimately shrinks the economy and puts on a path of ruin. When most people have no money to spend on anything but food and shelter, any business that doesn't go directly to that will be unsustainable. When most people start having to choose between food and shelter, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot more riots and violence which does good for no one.

/rant
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:15 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 16:01:
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:47:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.

Actually, it would make a dent. The deficit in 2012 was approximately 1,100 billion.
According to the IRS, the top 1% earned 1,300 billion in 2009.

So, that's a dent. But also ludicrous. Obviously no one wants them paying 100%, and it ignores the fact that tax is paid on a marginal rate basis, something too many people discussing taxes don't understand, plus taxes are important for a health of spending power perspective and this is the stronger argument for a raised marginal tax rate.

I'm not arguing raising taxes btw. Just that raising taxes on the rich alone isn't going to really do much without making massive cuts to spending across the board.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:01 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:47:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.

Actually, it would make a dent. The deficit in 2012 was approximately 1,100 billion.
According to the IRS, the top 1% earned 1,300 billion in 2009.

So, that's a dent. But also ludicrous. Obviously no one wants them paying 100%, and it ignores the fact that tax is paid on a marginal rate basis, something too many people discussing taxes don't understand, plus taxes are important for a health of spending power perspective and this is the stronger argument for a raised marginal tax rate.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 15:47 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:55:
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.

We won't last another 30 years going the way we're going. We'll be lucky to last another 10 without it all collapsing on itself. The smarter move would be to start addressing the problem now before we pass the point of no return.

This isn't about rich vs poor like the democrats want you to believe. What we're doing is not sustainable and a total collapse is coming whether anyone likes it or not if we keep spending the way we are. Taxes isn't going to help as much as you think either. Tax the 1% 100% and you're still not even making a dent.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:55 m00t
 
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:47 RollinThundr
 
nin wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:45:
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).


dunderdunderderpa!


Nin: Whines about trolls while trolling as hard as he can. Good on ya douchecanoe.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:46 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).

Fair enough I may have been confusing the two. Still though, perhaps we should start paying that 16.8 trillion rather than burying ourselves in more of it. Granted that would make too much common sense for the current crop of polititians (both R and D) to put into action.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:45 nin
 
m00t wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:39:
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).


dunderdunderderpa!

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:39 m00t
 
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:31 Cutter
 
RollinThundr wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 14:13:
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:24:
LittleMe wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:22:
Beamer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 11:09:
Yes, the market supports prices being through the roof and athletes being paid extreme salaries.
Much like the market supports the goods you buy being manufactured in China and the US-based CEOs being paid extreme salaries.

Well a big contributor to our manufacturing base moving to China is, imo, due to Fed (reserve) policy and our Federal debt. The Chinese and many other countries own a huge amount of our debt. Yes, it's a market force, but it's centrally planned and managed. So this isn't free-market economics at work in this case. It's anti free-market economics at work.


8%. China has 8% of our debt.

Your analysis of the cause is incorrect.

Try 26% of our debt is owed to China, it's far higher than 8% not sure who's ass you're pulling that number out of.

You're wrong - as usual - 8% is the correct number. Total foreign ownership of US debt is 46%.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo