Citations du jour : "L'Euro n'a pas sa place dans sa forme actuelle", Rapport de L'Union des banques suisses (UBS)
et
"Il faut liquider ces enfants de salauds", Jimmy Hoffa Jr., président du syndicat des Teamsters, parlant du Tea Party dans le discours qui précédait celui du président Obama à Détroit à l'occasion de la Fête du Travail

***

- Labor Leader On Tea Party: "Let's Take These Sons Of Bitches Out"


Zeke Miller - Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. provided a controversial — and profane — opening act for President Barack Obama in Detroit Sunday, telling a union crowd to "take these son of bitches out" while raving against the tea party and members of the GOP.
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Hoffa said.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march.... Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," he added.
His remarks immediately drew fire from Tea Party groups and the Republican National Committee.
But Hoffa told TalkingPointsMemo that he had no regrets, and that he would say it again.
"I would because I believe it," he said. "They've declared war on us. We didn't declare war on them, they declared war on us. We're fighting back. The question is, who stared the war?"
Update: A previous version of this post was missing a portion of the Hoffa quote, in which he says "Everybody here's got to vote."


- UBS Declares "The Euro Should Not Exist" In A Monster Report On The Odds Of An EU Breakup



UBS' Stephane Deo, Paul Donovan, and Larry Hatheway have released a monster report (posted over at ZeroHedge) examining the consequences of a Euro breakup, a once unlikely-seeming outcome that now grows more likely by the day.
The first line basically nails it:
The Euro should not exist (like this)
Under the current structure and with the current membership, the Euro does not work. Either the current structure will have to change, or the current membership will have to change.
The report argues that basically the whole system, right from the start, was basically a lie:
Why consider break-up at all? Break-up occurs because the Euro does not work. Member states would be economically better off if they had never joined. European monetary union was generally mis-sold to the population of the Europe. In the 1990s the Euro was often characterised as an instance of foreign exchange rate integration – the Exchange Rate Mechanism without the crises. The advantages of no foreign exchange rate uncertainties or costs for trade and tourists were emphasised. Of course the exchange rate integration was probably the least of the consequences of the Euro. The most important consequence was the integration of monetary policy. The hint was in the name “European Monetary Union”. However, politicians sought to ignore that hint. A Euro that had been promoted on the idea of monetary union rather than exchange rate integration would have been far more difficult to sell to the electorate.
A monetary union is, economically speaking, a “good” idea if the membership constitutes an optimal currency area. This occurs under one of two conditions. Either the area is so homogenous that the component economies all move in the same direction at roughly the same speed, at the same time. Alternatively, the economies are sufficiently flexible that any differences in economic performance can be relatively swiftly corrected.
Ultimately, even at this dire moment, UBS still has a hard time seeing a breakup, calling some kind of fiscal union more likely. The major reason: It would just be too economically costly for anyone to depart.
The economic cost (part 1)
The cost of a weak country leaving the Euro is significant. Consequences include sovereign default, corporate default, collapse of the banking system and collapse of international trade. There is little prospect of devaluation offering much assistance. We estimate that a weak Euro country leaving the Euro would incur a cost of around EUR9,500 to EUR11,500 per person in the exiting country during the first year. That cost would then probably amount to EUR3,000 to EUR4,000 per person
per year over subsequent years. That equates to a range of 40% to 50% of GDP in
the first year.
The economic cost (part 2)
Were a stronger country such as Germany to leave the Euro, the consequences would include corporate default, recapitalisation of the banking system and collapse of international trade. If Germany were to leave, we believe the cost to be around EUR6,000 to EUR8,000 for every German adult and child in the first year, and a range of EUR3,500 to EUR4,500 per person per year thereafter. That is the equivalent of 20% to 25% of GDP in the first year. In comparison, the cost of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal entirely in the wake of the default of those countries would be a little over EUR1,000 per person, in a single hit.
Read more, including a discussion of breakup mechanics, at ZeroHedge >



- Deutsche Bank CEO Just Gave A Terrifying Speech In Frankfurt

Josef Ackermann just gave a terrifying speech about the fragility of the Euro banking sector right now.
At a conference in Frankfurt he said, "It is an open secret that numerous European banks would not survive having to revalue sovereign debt held on the banking book at market levels."
We have translated the speech based on Handelsbatt's, the organizer of the event where Ackermann spoke, account of it.
"In recent weeks, the distrust of the financial markets has spread to the banks because they are now suffering from the debt crisis in Europe and have a lot of exposure to, for example, Greek bonds."
"Since the financial crisis, some European banks have lost a third or more of their market capitalization," he said, according to Google Translate.
"Most institutions have a rating of "below the book value or at best."
There are three major stress factors crushing Euro banks right now, he says: the debt crisis, structural factors and financial regulation. With them together, it will be hard for the European banks to increase their revenues.
The implication is that not just Eurozone countries are buckling under the pressure of Greece's, France's, and Italy's debts, but banks are too. It sounds like a desperate call for a bailout. Now.
However he says, "State funds could use means to put stability back into many companies and countries, but that does not remain the only solution."
Still, the situation he describes looks dire. He says, "Many countries and households would have to reduce their debt. The mortgage business and consumer loans were [the few things] driving growth. In addition, there's the problem of shrinking populations in several European countries, which negatively affects the growth of credit markets."
"All this reminds one of the autumn of 2008," said Ackermann. "We should resign ourselves to the fact that the 'new normality' is characterized by volatility and uncertainty."
Some hedge funds, like in 2007 and 2008, saw the enormity of the Eurozone debt crisis and began betting against Euro banks and other companies that have exposure to the crisis earlier this year. Their profits have already started to pay off.
As for the rest of the financial industry, things don't look good.
Here's what Ackermann sees: "Prospects for the financial sector overall... are rather limited."
"We have a financial industry that is still not really providing convincing answers to the questions about the meaningfulness of many modern financial products and trading in securities. The questions are getting louder and require new responses."
He also believes high frequency trading needs to be investigated more. He said regulators and the banks need to begin a dialogue to examine the effects of HFT in the markets, so as to avoid imbalances in the markets.
However a consequence of all of this scrutiny is that growth prospects for banks are low.
"The outlook for the future growth of revenues is limited by both the current situation and structurally."
The banks will have to ask how they can be more long-term investors in order to gain more stability in financial markets.
"We must in my opinion, check all our work in all areas thoroughly again to ascertain whether we prioritize our genuine tasks as servants of the real economic needs."
But immediately, the Euro banking sector must prepare for what happens if solutions to the Eurozone crisis and corresponding Euro banking crisis remain unsupported or nonexistent.
However recapitalization is not the answer. Ackermann duly shot down the measure suggested by IMF head Christine Lagarde at Jackson Hole.
He said recapitalizing the banks urgently, as Lagarde suggested, would be "counterproductive."
"A forced recapitalization would give the signal that politicians do not themselves believe in the measures" they are negotiating.
As a result, it could exacerbate the debt situation in individual countries. Also, faced with a threat of dilution (a result of recapitalization), private investments in banks would be even less likely.
Another measure that he does not think will help, he says, is dissolving the Eurozone. "The costs of supporting weak member states, particularly from the German perspective, are less than the costs of disintegration.... It is a dangerous illusion to believe that a country could do better should it reclaim the sovereignty it has delegated to the EU."
Sounds like Ackermann just sounded the alarm. There is now a full-on Euro banking crisis.
The conference he's at continues tomorrow. It's entitled "Banks in Transition," and it's organized by the German business daily Handelsblatt.
Here's a couple of videos of him giving the speech. Warning: they are in German.




UBS Declares "The Euro Should Not Exist" In A Monster Report On The Odds Of An EU Breakup

Joe Weisenthal | UBS' Stephane Deo, Paul Donovan, and Larry Hatheway have released a monster report (posted over at ZeroHedge) examining the consequences of a Euro breakup, a once unlikely-seeming outcome that now grows more likely by the day.
The first line basically nails it:
The Euro should not exist (like this)
Under the current structure and with the current membership, the Euro does not work. Either the current structure will have to change, or the current membership will have to change.
The report argues that basically the whole system, right from the start, was basically a lie:
Why consider break-up at all? Break-up occurs because the Euro does not work. Member states would be economically better off if they had never joined. European monetary union was generally mis-sold to the population of the Europe. In the 1990s the Euro was often characterised as an instance of foreign exchange rate integration – the Exchange Rate Mechanism without the crises. The advantages of no foreign exchange rate uncertainties or costs for trade and tourists were emphasised. Of course the exchange rate integration was probably the least of the consequences of the Euro. The most important consequence was the integration of monetary policy. The hint was in the name “European Monetary Union”. However, politicians sought to ignore that hint. A Euro that had been promoted on the idea of monetary union rather than exchange rate integration would have been far more difficult to sell to the electorate.
A monetary union is, economically speaking, a “good” idea if the membership constitutes an optimal currency area. This occurs under one of two conditions. Either the area is so homogenous that the component economies all move in the same direction at roughly the same speed, at the same time. Alternatively, the economies are sufficiently flexible that any differences in economic performance can be relatively swiftly corrected.
Ultimately, even at this dire moment, UBS still has a hard time seeing a breakup, calling some kind of fiscal union more likely. The major reason: It would just be too economically costly for anyone to depart.
The economic cost (part 1)
The cost of a weak country leaving the Euro is significant. Consequences include sovereign default, corporate default, collapse of the banking system and collapse of international trade. There is little prospect of devaluation offering much assistance. We estimate that a weak Euro country leaving the Euro would incur a cost of around EUR9,500 to EUR11,500 per person in the exiting country during the first year. That cost would then probably amount to EUR3,000 to EUR4,000 per person
per year over subsequent years. That equates to a range of 40% to 50% of GDP in
the first year.
The economic cost (part 2)
Were a stronger country such as Germany to leave the Euro, the consequences would include corporate default, recapitalisation of the banking system and collapse of international trade. If Germany were to leave, we believe the cost to be around EUR6,000 to EUR8,000 for every German adult and child in the first year, and a range of EUR3,500 to EUR4,500 per person per year thereafter. That is the equivalent of 20% to 25% of GDP in the first year. In comparison, the cost of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal entirely in the wake of the default of those countries would be a little over EUR1,000 per person, in a single hit.




- Finally, Obama Delivers The Fiery Jobs Speech Everyone's Been Waiting



President Barack Obama's Labor Day address in Detroit was short on specifics about his upcoming jobs plan, but the oratorical prowess that propelled him to the White House was on stirring display.
In short, campaign Obama was back — at least for one speech.
"For every cynic and every naysayer running around talking about how our best days are behind us — for everybody who keeps going around saying, 'No, we can’t' — for everybody who can always find a reason why we can’t rebuild America, I meet Americans every day who, in the face of impossible odds they’ve got a different belief," he said, interrupted by applause. "They believe we can. You believe we can."
Under increasing pressure from liberals to put the screws to Congress and present a comprehensive plan to create jobs, Obama brought his A-game to a friendly crowd of union-members. He celebrated their efforts, their city, and the American worker, assuring them he has a plan for getting people like them back to work.
Promising "a new way forward" on jobs, Obama teased his oft-repeated plans for an infrastructure bank and an extension of the payroll tax cut, and drew applause with lines like: "we've got to fully restore the middle class in America."
But Obama will face a decidedly colder and more skeptical audience on Thursday, when he presents his jobs plan on the House floor — in front of the lawmakers he is increasingly decrying as obstructionist and out of touch.
"Now is not the time for the people in Washington to worry about their jobs," Obama said, repeating his call for politicians to put citizenship ahead of partisanship. "It's time for them to worry about your jobs."
It's a message that is unlikely to be interrupted by applause — let alone the chants of "four more years" that peppered his Detroit speech. Chastising Congress on their home turf is a risky move — one of many difficult calls facing Obama as he prepares to give perhaps the most important speech yet of his presidency.
He must decide whether to pursue the bold plan to create jobs that his base wants, or a more modest plan that can pass divided government.
After Friday's dismal jobs report, with his poll numbers at unprecedented lows, and GOP criticism of his policies unceasing, Obama is running out of time to regain momentum going into the upcoming legislative season — and his reelection campaign.


- Bart de Wever : l'homme qui pourrait faire éclater la Belgique


Le Président du parti indépendantiste flamand Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie symbolise les difficultés politiques que rencontrent encore aujourd'hui une Belgique engluée dans ses divisions. Portrait.


Lorsque, en 1986, à 17 ans, j’ai quitté ma Belgique natale et franchi le Quiévrain pour vivre en République, je n’imaginais pas commettre un jour l’article qui suit.
À cette époque, l’extrême droite nationaliste flamande, si bien chantée par Jacques Brel dans sa chanson brûlot Les Flamingants, défilait encore couramment dans les rues francophones en uniforme militaire, combat shoes aux pieds, crânes rasés affichant leur nostalgie pour la Flandre sous administration nazie, ah ! cette douce époque où le prétendu peuple flamand était considéré comme partie intégrante du monde aryen. Bref,en ces temps d’un autre siècle, le nationalisme flamand était infréquentable et majoritairement étranger au fonctionnement démocratique.
Bart de Wever, l’homme qui a anobli le nationalisme flamand
Vingt-cinq ans plus tard, le visage de ces mêmes nationalistes s’est métamorphosé, sous l’impulsion de Bart de Wever, un quadragénaire bien résolu à en découdre avec une invention administrative - la Belgique - vieille de 180 ans à peine.
Bart de Wever a un pedigree on ne peut plus traditionaliste dans la constellation rétrograde du nationalisme flamand. Son grand-père fut le secrétaire du Vlaams Nationaal Verbond, le Front National flamand déclaré parti unique par les nazis durant la guerre. L’un des objectifs du VNV était de créer un État flamand indépendant. Des anciens du VNV créèrent, en 1949, la Vlaamse Concentratie, la Concentration flamande, puis, en 1954, un parti politique inscrit dans le jeu démocratique, la Volksunie. Le père de Bart fut militant de ce parti, qui mit entre parenthèses ses revendications autonomistes, durant les années 1970 et 80, pour participer à des coalitions gouvernementales.
Bart s’oriente très tôt vers une ligne plus radicale, puisqu’il milite au Vlaams Nationaal Jeugdverbond, les Jeunesses nationales flamandes, mouvement créé en 1960 par un ancien de la Concentration Flamande, transformée depuis 2005 en sorte de mouvement scout. En 2001, il profite de l’éclatement de la Volksunie pour participer à la création de la Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie, la Nouvelle Alliance flamande, ouvertement favorable à une indépendance flamande et qui devient en moins de dix ans le premier parti politique de Belgique, avec 18% des suffrages. Et pour cette seule prouesse, il faut reconnaître à Bart de Wever un talent exceptionnel.
La grande force de Bart de Wever est de pousser le nationalisme flamand à s’exprimer par la voix des urnes et à se servir des institutions belges pour assurer leur propre perte. Une sorte de détermination révolutionnaire radicale sans violence, qui s’impose comme un modèle d’efficacité pour tous ceux qui cherchent une stratégie de rupture sans recourir à des expédients totalitaires.
Pour ce faire, Bart borde sans relâche. Son parti choisit d’abord de s’allier aux chrétiens flamands, parti historique de la Flandre profonde, pour exister aux élections. Dans le même temps, il décide de rompre avec le visage militariste inquiétant du nationalisme flamand en adoptant une stratégie de communication redoutablement efficace. Ainsi, en 2005, il emmène une caravane de 12 camionnettes chargées de faux billets de 50 euros qu’il décharge en Wallonie pour illustrer concrètement les transferts financiers prétendus de la Flandre vers le sud du pays.
Le ton est donné : Bart fédère l’aspiration nationaliste flamande sans violence autre que verbale, et sans référence autre qu’implicite aux vieux démons flamands. Ses propos minorant la collaboration active des élites flamandes pendant la guerre lui ont d’ailleurs valu des polémiques enflammées.
Son coup de maître : la fin de la Belgique par la voie démocratique
Aux élections de juin 2010, Bart obtient à titre personnel près de 800 000 voix, qui font de lui l’homme politique le plus populaire de Flandre. Sa stratégie est payante. Il est devenu l’homme incontournable dans un système dont il veut la perte. Le roi Albert II est contraint de le pressentir comme Premier ministre, en le nommant informateur, c’est-à-dire chargé de négocier les bases d’une coalition gouvernementale. Pour la Belgique, ce 17 juin 2010 a valeur de 11 septembre ! Le pays met le doigt dans un engrenage suicidaire qui n’en finit pas de produire ses effets, puisque, sa mission abandonnée, Bart a ensuite bloqué tous ses successeurs dans leur ambition de réussir à former une coalition.
Avec une détermination qui lui vaut une popularité constante en Flandre, Bart de Wever déploie alors sa stratégie de mise en échec des institutions belges et de déliquescence progressive des pouvoirs publics. Bien décidé à bloquer tout accord de coalition, il alterne entre provocations (en se rendant par exemple à un jeu télévisé au lieu de participer à une négociation gouvernementale) et exigences insoutenables, comme le rattachement de Bruxelles à la Flandre, la fameuse scission de Bruxelles-Halle-Vilvorde, tarte à la crème du mouvement flamand, pour mettre en échec toute nomination d’un gouvernement.
Peu importe que Bruxelles soit capitale de l’Europe à majorité francophone, peu importe que Bruxelles n’ait jamais, historiquement, été la capitale de la Flandre ! Et même, au contraire, parce que Bruxelles n’a jamais été dans l’histoire une ville flamande, la revendication d’une Bruxelles flamande est d’autant plus utile à agiter : comme elle n’a aucune chance d’aboutir, elle garantit une paralysie des institutions et une disparition rapide de la Belgique.
Il faut reconnaître à Bart la vertu de la constance. Depuis plus d’un an, il empêche son pays de tourner en rond. Malgré les pressions inouïes dont il est l’objet, il ne cède pas un pouce de terrain, et il peut mettre à son crédit personnel le blocage institutionnel dont la Belgique est le théâtre. La crise politique belge est la victoire personnelle de Bart de Wever. Grâce à elle, il se taille chaque jour un pan supplémentaire d’un habit hors norme dans l’étoffe des hommes d’État qui marqueront leur siècle.
Les Français regardent souvent avec une distance amusée et un brin arrogante les conflits internes à la Belgique, qu’ils réduisent volontiers à des chamailleries tribales. Ce qui se passe outre-Quiévrain mérite plus d’attention, car autre chose y est à l'œuvre : la disparition d’une démocratie - certes, monarchique, certes dirigée par un «roi de papier», comme disait ma grand-mère, certes inventée en 1815 pour construire un glacis sans véritable ancrage historique et culturel entre la France et l’Europe du Nord - mais démocratie tout de même. Non par la violence, mais par le jeu des institutions, et par leur utilisation captieuse au profit d’un parti extrémiste dont les racines plongent dans les couches les plus obscures de la géologie politiques européennes.




- IMF warns of threatening downward spiral as EU crisis goes critical


The first week of autumn opens with the IMF warning the US and EU to abandon its austerity measures and switch back to stimulus or face a ‘threatening downward spiral’ in the global economy.
It is probably too late anyhow. Factory orders contracted all over the world last month. The slowdown has been months in the making and will take longer to unwind, even if emergency measures can be enacted.
No political will
But the body politic shows no interest in removing austerity packages that have taken time to put together and take effect. Indeed, what we are seeing now is the first part of the intended slowdown. The gamble is that this will sort out the deficits and debts without pulling the whole house of cards down.
The IMF used to be an institution known for its tough economic packages. Think back to what it demanded in the Asian Financial Crisis a little over a decade ago. Now that its own core member countries are in trouble it is going soft.
However, there is little to suggest that backtracking on austerity now would do anything much to help, except to postpone, perhaps, the inevitable shake-out and market implosion.
Economic management is not about directing economies into a pattern of continuous expansion. It is about guiding them onto a secure and stable base and smoothing out some of the ups and downs. It is about avoiding the massive booms that produce the inevitable busts.
Global central banks have failed on the second account. They have kept the money spiggots open for too long. They should have dampened credit many years ago to prevent this bubble. It is too late to do it now.
Downward spiral
What we have coming is therefore the ‘downward spiral’ that the IMF correctly if belatedly identifies. One country Greece will go bankrupt and be unable to pay its debt. Others like Italy will follow. There will be huge contractions as one market after another takes the pain. Greek GDP is already down more than six per cent.
Germany seems singularly unwilling to bailout the Greeks for a third time, and Italy is another matter. Italy has to roll over $21 billion this week, $88 billion this month, and more than $240 billion by the end of December. It cannot be done.
The endgame in the eurozone will soon be upon us and markets are already beginning to anticipate it. September and October are going to be interesting months as financial markets will have to discount the very worse scenarios and overshoot to the downside.
Posted on 05 September 2011




- Un ex-Premier ministre jugé pour l'effondrement financier de l'Islande



L'ex-Premier ministre islandais Geir Haarde a comparu lundi à Reykjavik devant un tribunal spécial pour sa responsabilité dans l'effondrement du système financier de l'Islandeen 2008, quand il en dirigeait le gouvernement.
Vêtu d'un costume sombre et d'une cravate bleue, M. Haarde, 60 ans, est arrivé accompagné de son épouse et visiblement détendu à la maison de la Culture, choisie pour abriter la Landsdomur, unique Cour habilitée à juger ministres ou ex-ministres.
Après deux heures et demie d'une audience consacrée à une demande d'abandon des poursuites déposée par la défense, la Landsdomur qui n'avait jamais été convoquée avant cette affaire, a ajourné les débats. Elle doit rendre sa décision sur la poursuite ou non de la procédure d'ici quelques semaines mais à une date non précisée.
"Il va sans dire qu'il n'est pas amusant de se retrouver dans cette situation (...) Il ne reste qu'à attendre la décision de la Cour", a déclaré M. Haarde à l'AFP à l'issue de l'audience.
"Dans la mesure où il s'agissait d'une audience consacrée à une demande d'abandon des charges, je n'étais pas tenu d'y assister. Mais j'ai décidé d'être présent par respect pour la Cour et aussi pour en apprendre plus et entendre les différents arguments", a-t-il dit.
Sur décision du Parlement (Althingi), M. Haarde est le seul responsable politique islandais à comparaître devant la justice pour répondre de son éventuelle responsabilité dans la crise financière qui a conduit à l'effondrement des grandes banques islandaises.
Pour ses avocats, cela constitue une "absence d'égalité face à la loi" qui doit mener à l'abandon des poursuites, selon un document transmis par la défense à l'AFP.
"En n'inculpant qu'une seule personne, sur des bases arbitraires, sans fondement objectif ni raison légale, nous affirmons que l'Althingi a enfreint (...) la Constitution islandaise qui prévoit l'égalité devant la loi", indique la défense. Elle rappelle qu'une commission parlementaire chargée de déterminer des responsabilités individuelles des membres du gouvernement avait en effet proposé "l'inculpation de quatre personnes".
La défense entend également disqualifier le procureur de l'Althingi et son enquête en soulignant notamment qu'il n'y avait "pas eu de réelle enquête criminelle" et que "l'acte d'accusation n'est pas clair et les charges pas suffisamment précises vis-à-vis de la loi".
"L'une des récriminations, et non des moindres, est que l'accusé Geir Haarde n'a jamais été interrogé en tant qu'accusé. On ne lui a jamais réellement posé de questions concernant les éléments à charge", a déclaré à l'AFPl'avocat Andri Arnason après l'audience.
Dans un entretien accordé à l'AFP en juillet, M. Haarde avait qualifié ce procès de "farce politique mise en scène par de vieux ennemis politiques".
"Le système bancaire s'est bien effondré, mais l'économie réelle, l'ensemble des capacités productrices du pays sont restées intactes et fonctionnent toujours", avait-il souligné en insistant avoir "sauvé le pays de la banqueroute".
Quand le secteur financier islandais hypertrophié a implosé, les trois principales banques du pays détenaient à elles seules des actifs équivalents à 923% du Produit intérieur brut (PIB) de l'Islande.
Chef du Parti de l'Indépendance (droite) qui dirigeait le pays depuis le milieu de 2006, M. Haarde a dû quitter le pouvoir début 2009 pour apaiser la colère populaire liée à la crise et à la profonde récession qu'elle a provoquée.
Depuis, le pays a renoué avec la croissance et les observateurs estiment que l'Islande pourrait se passer des dernières tranches d'un prêt accordé par le FMI.


- These 12 Startling Statistics Show What Our World Could Look Like In 2030

Vincent Trivett and Robert Johnson


Is this possible?

As the world continues to change, the only predictor of the future is where we've been.
With that in mind, we have taken trends from 2000-2010 and extended them out to get a feel for what the planet could be like if the following two decades are like the last one.
Some of these patterns will likely change over the years, but as with the cancellation of tighter ozone rules, public policy isn't always guided by common sense.
Regardless, the following slides show that many of the trends from the first decade of the 21st century are simply unsustainable.
Global Population will increase to nearly 8.8 billion people

Projected fo 2030: 8,747,791,644


US population will increase to 365 million people

Projected population in 2030: 365,357,077

A barrel of oil will cost $308.62


US Healthcare costs will increase 88% to $9 trillion a year


Source: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2010 expenditures are estimated, dollar values adjusted for inflation)
The US will have more than 53 million elderly

Projected senior population in 2030: 53,175,097
That's a lot of people on Social Security and Medicare.

The US prison population will be 9.4 million people


US prison population in 2000: 6,331,400
US prison population in 2010: 7,225,800
Percent Change: 14.13%
Projection for 2030: 9,412,08
Note how the prison population is growing significantly faster than the US population. Keeping a person behind bars costs the State of Massachusetts, for example, an average of $45,917 per inmate, per year.
Source: Department of Justice Data is counted over the previous year and into the first day of the year indicated.
US GDP will be $30.94 trillion

US GDP in 2000: $9.95 trillion
US GDP in 2010: $14.53 trillion
Percent change: 45.97%
Projection for 2030: $30.94 trillion
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Values are in current 2011 dollars
China's GDP will be $40.4 trillion


China's GDP in 2000: $5.02 trillion
China's GDP in 2010: $10.09 trillion
Percent Change: 100.1%
Projection for 2030: $40.4 trillion
If trends from the last decade could continue, China will be neck and neck with America by 2020, and pass it by completely by 2030.
Source: CIA World Fact Book, World Development Indicators Database
Values are in terms of Purchasing Power Parity
42% of America's will be obese




Adult obesity rate in 2000: 30.5
Adult obesity rate in 2010: 34%
Percent change: 11.5%
Projection for 2030: 42.1%
Source: Center for Disease Control

The world will consume 31% more energy

The US national debt will be $32 trillion


Outstanding US debt in 2000: 5,674,178,209,886.86
Outstanding US debt in 2030: 13,561,623,030,891.79
Percent Change: 139%
Projection for 2030: $32,412,279,000,000
Source: Treasury Direct (amounts for September 30th each year)


Americans will will be paid 19% more -- about $71k a year

US median household income in 2000: $42,148
US median household income in 2010: $50,221
Percent Change: 19%
Projection for 2030: $71,117