Jim Devine wrote:
On 5/15/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will have to take issue with Jim. The Democrats are not asleep
at the switch. They
don't even know where the switch is.
The Democrats are pretty stupid, it's true.
The stupidity is structural: they're members of a party that's
essentially in the grip of capital that has to pretend to represent
popular interests. So in this case, they can't pound the pulpit about
foreign ownership without offending their Wall Street/Fortune 500
paymasters.
I had not realized that the figure was over 50%. Tell us, Jim,
where you got the number.
When Reagan first started running up the foreign debt deficits, I
used to explain it in
terms of the decrease in sovereignty -- an issue which is supposed
to be near and dear to
the hearts of conservatives.
the number comes from table B-89 of the 2006 _Economic Report of the
President_. Divide "foreign and international holdings" by "total
privately held." This number excludes foreign indirect holdings
(because they own US-based banks, etc.) However, its rise partly
reflects the East Asian central banks use of US government securities
as reserve assets (which were boosted after the late-1990s East Asian
financial meltdowns).
One additional thing: a lot of hedge funds are recorded as being in
offshore tax havens, so their (usually speculative) holdings of
Treasury paper register as foreign, even if they're actually in the
US.
Doug
