4 ms·

Yes, of course, let us in the U.S. keep telling ourselves that China (and Japan) have no other option but to keep extending us ever increasing amounts of debt.

Yes, of course, let us in the U.S. keep telling ourselves that China (and Japan) have no other option but to keep extending us ever increasing amounts of debt. Our credit is safe, it is rated AAA, there are no other outlets, a U.S. debt crisis would be a seventeen sigma event, blah blah blah. It all sounds familiar, somehow.

jganetsk 18y ago
The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. It would make no sense for the Fed to not have an AAA credit rating.
- mattchew 18y ago
  I'm sure you took my meaning. It doesn't sound like you're correct though. At least S & P suggested that the U.S. might lose it's AAA rating. (Note also the article is from 2006, while we were still in the boom.) http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/us-credit-rating-could-drop-within-10-years/ http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/us-credit-rating-could-d...
- gravitycop 18y ago
  The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. Sometimes. Sometimes not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy
  - vlad 18y ago
    Sometimes. Sometimes not. The Credit Rating wikipedia page does not show him to be wrong. Also, the fallacy linked to is not applicable. Would you care to elaborate?
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      The Credit Rating wikipedia page does not show him to be wrong. Was linking to the Credit Rating wikipedia page intended to show someone to be wrong? The Credit Rating wikipedia page indicates that credit rating can be defined in more than one way. Would you care to elaborate? Do you know what equivocation is?
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
        gravitycop 18y ago
        >>> The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. >> Sometimes. Sometimes not. > you replied that it is not. No. I replied, "Sometimes. Sometimes not," intending to imply that it is not always defined in only one particular way, and that to do so would be to fallaciously equivocate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy

jganetsk 18y ago

The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. It would make no sense for the Fed to not have an AAA credit rating.

mattchew 18y ago
I'm sure you took my meaning. It doesn't sound like you're correct though. At least S & P suggested that the U.S. might lose it's AAA rating. (Note also the article is from 2006, while we were still in the boom.) http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/us-credit-rating-could-drop-within-10-years/ http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/us-credit-rating-could-d...
gravitycop 18y ago
The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. Sometimes. Sometimes not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy
- vlad 18y ago
  Sometimes. Sometimes not. The Credit Rating wikipedia page does not show him to be wrong. Also, the fallacy linked to is not applicable. Would you care to elaborate?
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    The Credit Rating wikipedia page does not show him to be wrong. Was linking to the Credit Rating wikipedia page intended to show someone to be wrong? The Credit Rating wikipedia page indicates that credit rating can be defined in more than one way. Would you care to elaborate? Do you know what equivocation is?
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        >>> The AAA credit rating is in terms of US dollars. >> Sometimes. Sometimes not. > you replied that it is not. No. I replied, "Sometimes. Sometimes not," intending to imply that it is not always defined in only one particular way, and that to do so would be to fallaciously equivocate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy