Why do we keep referring to ourselves as the "richest nation on earth?"

[NNadir]

We are not. We are the largest debtor nation on earth. We are one of the poorest nations on earth.

Yet another scale has to fall from our eyes.

[bemildred]

1. How about "The formerly richest nation on Earth"?

It's been a long, steep slide since WWII, mostly due to the truly incompetent and ignorant government policies during that time.

[idlisambar]

2. old habits die hard

The US is the biggest industrialized nation and so in terms of overall assets it is still the wealthiest, but more important is our wealth per person, and in this respect we are not the wealthiest. Basically it's a meaningless jingoistic phrase.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Because we are - and about 100 families own all the wealth. n/t

[Dark]

4. Yea, FormerRushFan is right.

Our gov't is spending way too much, but we are still the richest nation on earth, unless the dollar tanks. . .

[phantom power]

6. Really? Are those 100 rich people worth 8 trillion dollars?

Because that's our national debt. That would put us at zero.

[dcfirefighter]

7. we've allowed private banks to create $5-6T

Deposit Creation Multiplier

for which they get to charge interest, and we get to suffer inflation, and increasing debt.

A few trillion of our debt is debt our government owes another portion of our government, it's an accounting trick.

The other trillions are owned by non-US governmental entities. We could buy them back with debt-free Treasury Notes (greenbacks). If we simultaneously increased the reserve requirements of US banks (destroying deposit-created money), the shift would neither increase nor decrease the money supply - the move would be noninflationary.

If, after this, we had very strict controls on the Treasury printing press, we could match increases in the money supply with increases in money demand - keeping the price of money stable, which is noninflationary.

Two nice side effects: 1) no more debt service, $400B a year or so and 2) sovereignity from government created money would equal approximately $300B a year or so ($300B of new money each year).

$700B out of $2.5T isn't bad. Importantly, it's about what we pay every year in payroll taxes for SS, medicare, and other social insurance. If we get rid of the payroll tax, the cost of employment decreases 15.3 percent. If the cost of employment decreases 15.3%, total employment should increase by a similar amount. That could mean 20 million new jobs (note that current unemployment levels are around 7.5 million). Wages would increase.

[Hope springs eternal]

14. Why do you assume this will actually work?

Let's play ball and say I do get 15.3% off my taxes. As a business, I, the owner, get to decide where that money goes. Being human, what is to stop me from gobbling up that 15.3% for myself?


People assume employers are going to give you that money back. Same deal with eliminating taxes on wages. As a rich person, as long as I can continue to put money into the bank with no consequence (ie: taxes out the ass), then why in my right mind wouldn't I do so?


That's why my plan makes sense. I tax incomes progressivley, to the point where there becomes no point in putting it in my bank account. It's like as if Reagnomics (no taxes on wages/capital) and Socialism (massive taxes on wealthy, sweeping goverment programs, equality) got married and had kids...

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Oh, they don't pay TAXES which will reduce the debt...

The WORKING class pays taxes...

Sure the rich pay taxes, except it's for reduced incomes vehicles like capital gains, rent, interest, dividends, you know, incomes upon which Social Security isn't taxed on, just WAGES. That means they pay 15.3% lower rates than YOU poor slobs EARNING your money...

But many of them work, you know, for FOUNDATIONS, through which many corporations are controlled through their tax-exempt holdings. What? Your family doesn't have a trust fund? They get their jobs because they're BORN into the family. And the Founding Fathers thought there'd be no aristocracy? Not officially, I guess.

You must also consider the difference between wealth and CONTROL.

You'll find all kinds of info re: public ownership of companies, but that is a DECEPTION. Ownership means NOTHING without CONTROL, and all the joe-sixpacks combined who own shares in Sears have NO CONTROL compared to the board of trustees who collectively own a minority share, but control EVERYTHING.

What? National Sales Tax? They're happy restoring their "used" estates, antiques, imported $500,000 "used" sports cars with 10 miles on them. They won't mind going to Europe for their clothes either.

Besides, sales taxes will only make being rich more exclusive!

[Dark]

12. No, our GNP is around ten trillion dollars. Teenage girls in America

spend more money than most third world governments put together.

[mikita]

5. I guess for the same reason we call ourselves a Democracy...

100% spin, all the time....

[Robert Oak]

9. you've asked the obvious

Thank you. I hear that over and over on the news and just
have to laugh.

I guess it's included with the rest of the propaganda, like those commercials showing middle class families with all of the goodies happy, buying that 40k car and investing with financial planners..
By every
metric out there, the US is not the richest nation on earth.

[nick303]

10. Our real GDP is the highest of any nation

Per capita, we come in 2nd to Luxembourg.

[idlisambar]

11. per capita, only by the PPP measure

Using nominal exchange rates (a more objective if more volatile measure), there are many nations ahead of us and many more that are very close. Also, given that the dollar is highly overvalued, the current figures overestimate the U.S.'s relative wealth.

1 Luxembourg 69,737
2 Norway 54,600
3 Switzerland 49,300
4 Ireland 45,675
5 Denmark 44,808
6 Iceland 41,804
7 United States 39,935
8 Sweden 38,493
9 Qatar 37,610
10 Netherlands 37,326
11 Japan 36,596
12 Austria 36,244
13 Finland 35,666
14 United Kingdom 35,548
15 Belgium 33,866
16 Germany 33,390
17 France 32,911
18 Canada 31,134
19 Australia 30,682
20 Italy 29,014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

[Odin2005]

13. I know Norway rich because of oil...

but what does little Luxembourg have to make it so rich per capita? Does it have a lot of business HQs like Switzeland?

Oh, I find it hilarious that Ireland is richer per capita than the UK. Payback's a bitch after how the Brits treated the Irish. :wow: