Re: Kalo semua negara berhutang. Lantas yang memberi hutang itu siopo?
http://forum.kompas.com/nasional/126210-kalo-semua-negara-berhutang-lantas-yang-memberi-hutang-itu-siopo-2.html
Posd http://forum.kompas.com/nasional/126210-kalo-semua-negara-berhutang-lantas-yang-memberi-hutang-itu-siopo-2.html
ryoteki kinyu kanwa atau quantitative easing adalah suatu teknik membayar hutang tanpa menghilangkan hutang. Membayar hutang tersebut tentu saja dengan mencetak uang baru, tanpa terjadi inflasi yang berarti. Inilah yang dipraktekan pada krisis moneter di Amerika, coba diperhatikan nilai usd sekarang masih tetap berkisar di 9300. Padahal telah mencetak banyak uang.
Printing money
Quantitative easing has been nicknamed "printing money" by some members of the media,[69]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-69"[70]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-70"[71] central bankers,[72] and financial analysts.[73]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-business.timesonline.co.uk-73"[74]
However, central banks state that the use of the newly created money is
different in QE. With QE, the newly created money is used for buying
government bonds or other financial assets, whereas the term printing money
usually implies that the newly minted money is used to directly finance
government deficits or pay off government debt (also known as monetizing the government debt).[69]
Central banks in most developed nations (e.g., UK, US, Japan, and EU) are forbidden by law to buy government debt directly from the government and must instead buy it from the secondary market.[68]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-74"[75]
This two-step process, where the government sells bonds to private
entities which the central bank then buys, has been called "monetizing
the debt" by many analysts.[68]
The distinguishing characteristic between QE and monetizing debt is
that with QE, the central bank is creating money to stimulate the
economy, not to finance government spending. Also, the central bank has
the stated intention of reversing the QE when the economy has recovered
(by selling the government bonds and other financial assets back into
the market).[69]
The only effective way to determine whether a central bank has
monetized debt is to compare its performance relative to its stated
objectives. Many central banks have adopted an inflation target. It is
likely that a central bank is monetizing the debt if it continues to buy
government debt when inflation is above target, and the government has
problems with debt-financing.[68]
Ben Bernanke remarked in 2002 that the US Government had a technology called the printing press, or today its electronic equivalent, so that if rates reached zero and deflation was threatened the government could always act to ensure deflation was prevented. He said, however, that the Government would not print money and distribute it "willy nilly" but would rather focus its efforts in certain areas (for example, buying federal agency debt securities and mortgage-backed securities).[76]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-76"[77]
[Note.. "willy nilly"...........
Definition of WILLY-NILLY
1: by compulsion : without choice
2: in a haphazard or spontaneous manner
See Origin of WILLY-NILLY
alteration of will I nill I or will ye nill ye or will he nill he
First Known Use: 1608
Browse
Next Word in the Dictionary: willy–wagtail
Previous Word in the Dictionary: willy–mufty
All Words Near: willy-nilly
Previous Word in the Dictionary: willy–mufty
All Words Near: willy-nilly
Seen & Heard 
What made you want to look up willy-nilly? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible)....]
According to economist Robert McTeer, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, there is nothing wrong with printing money during a
recession, and quantitative easing is different from traditional
monetary policy "only in its magnitude and pre-announcement of amount
and timing".[78]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-78"[79]Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
warned that a potential risk of QE is, "the risk of being perceived as
embarking on the slippery slope of debt monetization. We know that once a
central bank is perceived as targeting government debt yields at a time
of persistent budget deficits, concern about debt monetization quickly
arises." and later in the same speech states that the Fed is monetizing
the government debt, "The math of this new exercise is readily
transparent: The Federal Reserve will buy $110 billion a month in
Treasuries, an amount that, annualized, represents the projected deficit
of the federal government for next year. For the next eight months, the
nation’s central bank will be monetizing the federal debt."[80]
Kurang ngerti ekonomi jadi cuma bisa copas:
Yet, as the data below show, the size of the national debt relative to GDP was falling until 1980. The huge annual deficits in recent decades -- and especially in recent years -- drove the ratio up, but the current level is well within historical bounds and also stands well within the normal range of other industrialized nations. It has not thrust us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Year National Debt National Debt
($ billions) as % of GDP
1940 $51 50%
1945 260 122
1970 381 38
1980 909 33
1990 3,206 56
2000 5,629 57
2010 13,529 93
Moreover, the national debt is not like debts you and I might incur. It is money that we, through our collective representative the government, have borrowed from ourselves. Our personal debt is external; it's owed to others. Most of the national debt is internal; it's money we owe to ourselves. Although some of the debt is owned by foreign interests, three-fourths of it is held by U.S. creditors. In fact, the largest creditor of the government is the government itself! About 50 percent of the national debt is owned by government agencies -- mostly federal, but some state and local.
The national debt need not be repaid in the same sense that private debt must be repaid. Most government debt is in the form of short-term Treasury bills that mature every 90 days. When one set of Treasury bills matures, the government simply pays them off by selling more. As long as it offers competitive rates of return on "safe" bonds, the government will be able to refinance or "roll over" its debt indefinitely. As a result, we need not worry about burdening our children with repayment. They won't repay the debt. Like us, they will refinance and pass it on.
More importantly, the official data badly misstate the true importance of the debt. The government does have debts, but it also has assets. If I can borrow $500 and buy a capital asset worth $600, I'm better off, not worse off! What matters is government net worth, not the value of its debt. The numbers are somewhat subjective (how can we measure the value of the Capitol or Yellowstone National Park?), but researchers calculate that our government net worth remains solidly positive.
Crowding out
Does that mean deficits and debt pose no economic problem? Not necessarily. Government borrowing impacts credit markets and pulls dollars and resources into the public sector. If the economy is in a recession and these resources otherwise would have been unemployed, no damage is done. In fact, deficit spending designed to put these resources back to work is the traditional fiscal policy recommendation to stimulate the economy and eliminate the recession. But, if the economy is already at or near full-employment, deficits will "crowd out" private investment.
When the government borrows, it competes for scarce loanable funds with private firms that also want to borrow. Like any other market, increased demand creates a shortage that, in turn, drives up prices. When the government wants to borrow, its new demand creates a shortage of loanable funds that drives up the rate of interest. The higher interest rate makes borrowing more costly and discourages private firms from borrowing and investing. The would-be private borrowers are crowded out of the market. Monies that might have been loaned to finance research and development or new manufacturing capacity in the private sector are loaned to the government instead. Unfortunately, with less research and development and less manufacturing capacity, productivity and long-run economic growth will suffer. As a result, current fiscal prolificacy can lower the standard of living our children will enjoy.
On the other hand, crowding out does not always cause lower productivity and growth. Suppose the government borrows $100 million that would have been borrowed by General Mills to modernize its cereal factories. We lose the $100 million of private investment, but what do we get in return? What does the government do with its $100 million? If the $100 million is wasted on unproductive Congressional junkets to Bermuda, future generations are harmed. They inherit a smaller and less productive stock of capital with which to work. But, suppose the $100 million is used to educate a new work force or to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. These are productive investments and are indispensable building blocks for our future economic well-being.
The critical question is which project will benefit future generations the most--modernized cereal factories or new education/infrastructure. As long as the government spends its borrowed dollars on investments at least as productive as the private investments it crowds out, no damage is done.
Mungkin untuk Indonesia sedikit berbeda kondisinya (kurang tahu),
kalau di tulisan di atas, kebanyakan hutang negara US, menurut tulisan
itu, adalah pada warga negaranya sendiri.
Cuma saya tertarik untuk bagian yang saya bold:
Kira-kira apakah hutang negara Indonesia sudah dipakai dengan
benar oleh pemerintah Indonesia? Ataukah hutang itu dipakai juga untuk
membayar fasilitas2 mewah para pejabat yang sebenarnya tidak perlu?
Termasuk di dalamnya anggaran untuk study banding di negara2 maju.
The National Debt: So What?
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
...Alexander Hamilton
For many years my father has suffered from a curious malady called Debtiphobia, an abnormal fear of the National Debt. I have tried to administer various treatments, but none has been successful. The condition may be chronic.
His disorder occasionally lapses into remission, but is apparently triggered by the sight of an economist and flares up when I visit for Christmas or other festive occasions. It typically strikes when I am in a weakened condition--collapsed on the sofa in front of the television, turkey-stuffed abdomen extending gently over my belt, gearing up mentally for a frontal assault on the butterscotch brownies my mother has lovingly baked for me. It starts innocently enough. Muffled phrases like "irresponsible spending" and "national disgrace" begin to percolate through the after-dinner air from my father's direction. By the time we get to "mortgaging the future" and "pay the piper," my wife has pulled out a book to read, my mother has excused herself and returned to the kitchen and I am left alone to weather the onslaught.
I don't really mind. In fact I much prefer deficit harangues to my father's alternative passion of playing checkers. I've got a fighting chance at discussing economics, but I'm dead in the water with checkers. He's kicked my butt at that game for years.
A large and growing debt
Of course, my father is not debtiphobia's only casualty. Although virtually ignored in medical literature, the disease is widespread. On the surface, debtiphobia seems justified. The national debt IS big and currently stands close to $10 trillion; more than $30,000 for each man, woman and child in America. And every additional government deficit drives it higher.
Most economists agree that occasional budget deficits do no harm and, if used to push an economy out of a recession, can be quite useful. However, while traditional fiscal policy prescribes budget deficits during a recession, it also prescribes budget surpluses to slow inflation during economic booms. That rarely happens. Instead of running budget deficits during economic downturns offset by surpluses during good years, governments tend to run deficits in every year. Despite lip service to balanced budgets, we often run for the exits at the sight of tax increases or spending cuts large enough to achieve them. An almost unending string of red ink that piles up more national debt each year results.
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
...Alexander Hamilton
For many years my father has suffered from a curious malady called Debtiphobia, an abnormal fear of the National Debt. I have tried to administer various treatments, but none has been successful. The condition may be chronic.
His disorder occasionally lapses into remission, but is apparently triggered by the sight of an economist and flares up when I visit for Christmas or other festive occasions. It typically strikes when I am in a weakened condition--collapsed on the sofa in front of the television, turkey-stuffed abdomen extending gently over my belt, gearing up mentally for a frontal assault on the butterscotch brownies my mother has lovingly baked for me. It starts innocently enough. Muffled phrases like "irresponsible spending" and "national disgrace" begin to percolate through the after-dinner air from my father's direction. By the time we get to "mortgaging the future" and "pay the piper," my wife has pulled out a book to read, my mother has excused herself and returned to the kitchen and I am left alone to weather the onslaught.
I don't really mind. In fact I much prefer deficit harangues to my father's alternative passion of playing checkers. I've got a fighting chance at discussing economics, but I'm dead in the water with checkers. He's kicked my butt at that game for years.
A large and growing debt
Of course, my father is not debtiphobia's only casualty. Although virtually ignored in medical literature, the disease is widespread. On the surface, debtiphobia seems justified. The national debt IS big and currently stands close to $10 trillion; more than $30,000 for each man, woman and child in America. And every additional government deficit drives it higher.
Most economists agree that occasional budget deficits do no harm and, if used to push an economy out of a recession, can be quite useful. However, while traditional fiscal policy prescribes budget deficits during a recession, it also prescribes budget surpluses to slow inflation during economic booms. That rarely happens. Instead of running budget deficits during economic downturns offset by surpluses during good years, governments tend to run deficits in every year. Despite lip service to balanced budgets, we often run for the exits at the sight of tax increases or spending cuts large enough to achieve them. An almost unending string of red ink that piles up more national debt each year results.
Yet, as the data below show, the size of the national debt relative to GDP was falling until 1980. The huge annual deficits in recent decades -- and especially in recent years -- drove the ratio up, but the current level is well within historical bounds and also stands well within the normal range of other industrialized nations. It has not thrust us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Year National Debt National Debt
($ billions) as % of GDP
1940 $51 50%
1945 260 122
1970 381 38
1980 909 33
1990 3,206 56
2000 5,629 57
2010 13,529 93
Moreover, the national debt is not like debts you and I might incur. It is money that we, through our collective representative the government, have borrowed from ourselves. Our personal debt is external; it's owed to others. Most of the national debt is internal; it's money we owe to ourselves. Although some of the debt is owned by foreign interests, three-fourths of it is held by U.S. creditors. In fact, the largest creditor of the government is the government itself! About 50 percent of the national debt is owned by government agencies -- mostly federal, but some state and local.
The national debt need not be repaid in the same sense that private debt must be repaid. Most government debt is in the form of short-term Treasury bills that mature every 90 days. When one set of Treasury bills matures, the government simply pays them off by selling more. As long as it offers competitive rates of return on "safe" bonds, the government will be able to refinance or "roll over" its debt indefinitely. As a result, we need not worry about burdening our children with repayment. They won't repay the debt. Like us, they will refinance and pass it on.
More importantly, the official data badly misstate the true importance of the debt. The government does have debts, but it also has assets. If I can borrow $500 and buy a capital asset worth $600, I'm better off, not worse off! What matters is government net worth, not the value of its debt. The numbers are somewhat subjective (how can we measure the value of the Capitol or Yellowstone National Park?), but researchers calculate that our government net worth remains solidly positive.
Crowding out
Does that mean deficits and debt pose no economic problem? Not necessarily. Government borrowing impacts credit markets and pulls dollars and resources into the public sector. If the economy is in a recession and these resources otherwise would have been unemployed, no damage is done. In fact, deficit spending designed to put these resources back to work is the traditional fiscal policy recommendation to stimulate the economy and eliminate the recession. But, if the economy is already at or near full-employment, deficits will "crowd out" private investment.
When the government borrows, it competes for scarce loanable funds with private firms that also want to borrow. Like any other market, increased demand creates a shortage that, in turn, drives up prices. When the government wants to borrow, its new demand creates a shortage of loanable funds that drives up the rate of interest. The higher interest rate makes borrowing more costly and discourages private firms from borrowing and investing. The would-be private borrowers are crowded out of the market. Monies that might have been loaned to finance research and development or new manufacturing capacity in the private sector are loaned to the government instead. Unfortunately, with less research and development and less manufacturing capacity, productivity and long-run economic growth will suffer. As a result, current fiscal prolificacy can lower the standard of living our children will enjoy.
On the other hand, crowding out does not always cause lower productivity and growth. Suppose the government borrows $100 million that would have been borrowed by General Mills to modernize its cereal factories. We lose the $100 million of private investment, but what do we get in return? What does the government do with its $100 million? If the $100 million is wasted on unproductive Congressional junkets to Bermuda, future generations are harmed. They inherit a smaller and less productive stock of capital with which to work. But, suppose the $100 million is used to educate a new work force or to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. These are productive investments and are indispensable building blocks for our future economic well-being.
The critical question is which project will benefit future generations the most--modernized cereal factories or new education/infrastructure. As long as the government spends its borrowed dollars on investments at least as productive as the private investments it crowds out, no damage is done.
Cuma saya tertarik untuk bagian yang saya bold:
We lose the $100 million of private investment, but what do we get in return? What does the government do
with its $100 million? If the $100 million is wasted on unproductive
Congressional junkets to Bermuda, future generations are harmed.
Re: Kalo Semua Negara Berhutang. Lantas yang Memberi Hutang itu Siopo?
MDG
http://forum.kompas.com/nasional/126210-kalo-semua-negara-berhutang-lantas-yang-memberi-hutang-itu-siopo-3.html
Millennium Development Goals
Adalah program pemiskinan rakyat yang telah direncanakan negara-negara maju sejak tahun 2001 tapi tak direspon positif oleh pemerintahan Megawati. Program ini berkedok mengurangi orang miskin didunia. Sebenarnya tujuannya untuk kembali melilit negara berkembang dengan hutang-hutang maha besar.
Millennium Development Goals
Adalah program pemiskinan rakyat yang telah direncanakan negara-negara maju sejak tahun 2001 tapi tak direspon positif oleh pemerintahan Megawati. Program ini berkedok mengurangi orang miskin didunia. Sebenarnya tujuannya untuk kembali melilit negara berkembang dengan hutang-hutang maha besar.
Ideas behind the MDG 
This graph shows the proportion of world population in extreme poverty 1981–2008 according to the World Bank.
The MDGs originated from the Millennium Declaration produced by the United Nations. The Declaration asserts that every individual has the right to dignity, freedom, equality, a basic standard of living that includes freedom from hunger and violence, and encourages tolerance and solidarity.[4] The MDGs were made to operationalize these ideas by setting targets and indicators for poverty reduction in order to achieve the rights set forth in the Declaration on a set fifteen-year timeline.[4][5]
The Millennium Summit Declaration was, however, only part of the origins of the MDGs. It came about from not just the UN but also the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The setting came about through a series of UN-led conferences in the 1990s focusing on issues such as children, nutrition, human rights, women and others. The OECD criticized major donors for reducing their levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA). With the onset of the UN's 50th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the need to address the range of development issues. This led to his report titled, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century which led to the Millennium Declaration. By this time, the OECD had already formed its International Development Goals (IDGs) and it was combined with the UN's efforts in the World Bank's 2001 meeting to form the MDGs.[3][6]
The MIB focus on three major areas of improving infrastructure, and increasing social, economic and political rights, with the majority of the focus going towards increasing basic standards of living.[7] The objectives chosen within the human capital focus include improving nutrition, healthcare (including reducing levels of child mortality, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and increasing reproductive health), and education. For the infrastructure focus, the objectives include improving infrastructure through increasing access to safe drinking water, energy and modern information/communication technology; amplifying farm outputs through sustainable practices; improving transportation infrastructure; and preserving the environment. Lastly, for the social, economic and political rights focus, the objectives include empowering women, reducing violence, increasing political voice, ensuring equal access to public services, and increasing security of property rights. The goals chosen were intended to increase an individual’s human capabilities and "advance the means to a productive life".[7] The MDGs emphasize that individual policies needed to achieve these goals should be tailored to individual country’s needs; therefore most policy suggestions are general.[7]
The MDGs also emphasize the role of developed countries in aiding developing countries, as outlined in Goal Eight. Goal Eight sets objectives and targets for developed countries to achieve a "global partnership for development" by supporting fair trade, debt relief for developing nations, increasing aid and access to affordable essential medicines, and encouraging technology transfer.[7][8] Thus developing nations are not seen as left to achieve the MDGs on their own, but as a partner in the developing-developed compact to reduce world poverty.
The MDGs originated from the Millennium Declaration produced by the United Nations. The Declaration asserts that every individual has the right to dignity, freedom, equality, a basic standard of living that includes freedom from hunger and violence, and encourages tolerance and solidarity.[4] The MDGs were made to operationalize these ideas by setting targets and indicators for poverty reduction in order to achieve the rights set forth in the Declaration on a set fifteen-year timeline.[4][5]
The Millennium Summit Declaration was, however, only part of the origins of the MDGs. It came about from not just the UN but also the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The setting came about through a series of UN-led conferences in the 1990s focusing on issues such as children, nutrition, human rights, women and others. The OECD criticized major donors for reducing their levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA). With the onset of the UN's 50th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the need to address the range of development issues. This led to his report titled, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century which led to the Millennium Declaration. By this time, the OECD had already formed its International Development Goals (IDGs) and it was combined with the UN's efforts in the World Bank's 2001 meeting to form the MDGs.[3][6]
The MIB focus on three major areas of improving infrastructure, and increasing social, economic and political rights, with the majority of the focus going towards increasing basic standards of living.[7] The objectives chosen within the human capital focus include improving nutrition, healthcare (including reducing levels of child mortality, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and increasing reproductive health), and education. For the infrastructure focus, the objectives include improving infrastructure through increasing access to safe drinking water, energy and modern information/communication technology; amplifying farm outputs through sustainable practices; improving transportation infrastructure; and preserving the environment. Lastly, for the social, economic and political rights focus, the objectives include empowering women, reducing violence, increasing political voice, ensuring equal access to public services, and increasing security of property rights. The goals chosen were intended to increase an individual’s human capabilities and "advance the means to a productive life".[7] The MDGs emphasize that individual policies needed to achieve these goals should be tailored to individual country’s needs; therefore most policy suggestions are general.[7]
The MDGs also emphasize the role of developed countries in aiding developing countries, as outlined in Goal Eight. Goal Eight sets objectives and targets for developed countries to achieve a "global partnership for development" by supporting fair trade, debt relief for developing nations, increasing aid and access to affordable essential medicines, and encouraging technology transfer.[7][8] Thus developing nations are not seen as left to achieve the MDGs on their own, but as a partner in the developing-developed compact to reduce world poverty.
Re: Kalo semua negara berhutang. Lantas yang memberi hutang itu siopo?
Re: Apa yang lebih berdosa dari korupsi...!!!
External > Debt statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
Rank Countries Amount Date
# 1 United States: $13,980,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
American Economy
# 2 United Kingdom: $8,981,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
British Economy
# 3 Germany: $4,713,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
German Economy
# 4 France: $4,698,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
French Economy
# 5 Japan: $2,441,000,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Japanese Economy
# 6 Netherlands: $2,277,000,000,000.00 2007
Dutch Economy
# 7 Ireland: $2,253,000,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Irish Economy
# 8 Norway: $2,232,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Norwegian Economy
# 9 Italy: $2,223,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Italian Economy
# 10 Spain: $2,166,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Spanish Economy
# 11 Luxembourg: $1,892,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Luxembourg Economy
# 12 Belgium: $1,241,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Belgian Economy
# 13 Switzerland: $1,200,000,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Swiss Economy
# 14 Australia: $1,169,000,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Australian Economy
# 15 Canada: $1,009,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Canadian Economy
# 16 Sweden: $853,300,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Swedish Economy
# 17 Austria: $755,000,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Austrian Economy
# 18 Denmark: $559,500,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Danish Economy
# 19 Greece: $532,900,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Greek Economy
# 20 Portugal: $497,800,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Portuguese Economy
# 21 Russia: $480,200,000,000.00 2010-11-30
Russian Economy
# 22 China: $406,600,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Chinese Economy
# 23 Finland: $370,800,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Finnish Economy
# 24 Korea, South: $370,100,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Korean Economy
# 25 Brazil: $310,800,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Brazilian Economy
# 26 Turkey: $270,700,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Turkish Economy
# 27 Poland: $252,900,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Polish Economy
# 28 India: $237,100,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Indian Economy
# 29 Mexico: $212,500,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Mexican Economy
# 30 Indonesia: $196,100,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Indonesian Economy
# 31 Hungary: $148,400,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Hungarian Economy
# 32 Argentina: $128,600,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Argentine Economy
# 33 United Arab Emirates: $122,700,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Emirati Economy
# 34 Romania: $108,900,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Romanian Economy
# 35 Ukraine: $97,500,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ukrainian Economy
# 36 Kazakhstan: $94,440,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Kazakhstani Economy
# 37 Taiwan: $91,410,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Taiwan Economy
# 38 Israel: $89,680,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Israeli Economy
# 39 Czech Republic: $86,790,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Czech Economy
# 40 Chile: $84,510,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Chilean Economy
# 41 Saudi Arabia: $82,920,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Saudi Economy
# 42 Thailand: $82,500,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Thai Economy
# 43 South Africa: $80,520,000,000.00 2010-06-30
South African Economy
# 44 Malaysia: $72,600,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Malaysian Economy
# 45 Qatar: $71,380,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Qatari Economy
# 46 Hong Kong: $69,860,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Hong Kong Economy
# 47 New Zealand: $64,330,000,000.00 2010-12-31
New Zealand Economy
# 48 Philippines: $59,770,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Philippine Economy
# 49 Croatia: $59,700,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Croatian Economy
# 50 Slovakia: $59,330,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Slovak Economy
# 51 Colombia: $57,740,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Colombian Economy
# 52 Pakistan: $57,210,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Pakistani Economy
# 53 Kuwait: $56,810,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Kuwaiti Economy
# 54 Venezuela: $55,610,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Venezuelan Economy
# 55 Iraq: $52,580,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Iraqi Economy
# 56 Slovenia: $51,570,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Slovenian Economy
# 57 Bulgaria: $47,150,000,000.00 2010-11-30
Bulgarian Economy
# 58 Malta: $41,020,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Maltese Economy
# 59 Sudan: $37,980,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Sudanese Economy
# 60 Latvia: $37,280,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Latvian Economy
# 61 Lebanon: $34,450,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Lebanese Economy
# 62 Vietnam: $33,450,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Vietnamese Economy
# 63 Peru: $33,290,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Peruvian Economy
# 64 Serbia and Montenegro: $30,900,000,000.00 2010-11-30
Serbian Economy
# 65 Egypt: $30,610,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Egyptian Economy
# 66 Lithuania: $27,600,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Lithuanian Economy
# 67 Cyprus: $26,970,000,000.00 2007
Cypriot Economy
# 68 Estonia: $25,130,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Estonian Economy
# 69 Belarus: $24,800,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Belarusian Economy
# 70 Bangladesh: $24,460,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Bangladeshi Economy
# 71 Morocco: $22,690,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Moroccan Economy
# 72 Singapore: $21,660,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Singapore Economy
# 73 Cuba: $19,750,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Cuban Economy
# 74 Tunisia: $18,760,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Tunisian Economy
# 75 Monaco: $18,000,000,000.00 2000
Monegasque Economy
# 76 Angola: $17,980,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Angolan Economy
# 77 Sri Lanka: $17,970,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Sri Lankan Economy
# 78 Guatemala: $17,470,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Guatemalan Economy
# 79 Ecuador: $14,710,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ecuadorian Economy
# 80 Bahrain: $14,680,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Bahraini Economy
# 81 Panama: $13,850,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Panamanian Economy
# 82 Uruguay: $13,390,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Uruguayan Economy
# 83 Dominican Republic: $13,090,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Dominican Economy
# 84 Iran: $12,840,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Iranian Economy
# 85 Jamaica: $12,660,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Jamaican Economy
# 86 Korea, North: $12,500,000,000.00 2001
Korean Economy
# 87 Côte d'Ivoire: $11,600,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ivoirian Economy
# 88 El Salvador: $11,450,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Salvadoran Economy
# 89 Nigeria: $11,020,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Nigerian Economy
# 90 Oman: $8,829,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Omani Economy
# 91 Costa Rica: $8,550,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Costa Rican Economy
# 92 Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,996,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Herzegovinian Economy
# 93 Kenya: $7,935,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Kenyan Economy
# 94 Syria: $7,682,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Syrian Economy
# 95 Tanzania: $7,576,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Tanzanian Economy
# 96 Yemen: $7,147,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Yemeni Economy
# 97 Burma: $7,145,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Burmese Economy
# 98 Ghana: $6,483,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ghanaian Economy
# 99 Libya: $6,378,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Libyan Economy
# 100 Laos: $5,797,000,000.00 2010
Lao Economy
# 101 Zimbabwe: $5,772,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Zimbabwean Economy
# 102 Jordan: $5,522,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Jordanian Economy
# 103 Macedonia, Republic of: $5,485,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Macedonian Economy
# 104 Armenia: $5,227,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Armenian Economy
# 105 Mauritius: $5,043,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Mauritian Economy
= 106 Congo, Republic of the: $5,000,000,000.00 2000
Congolese Economy
= 106 Turkmenistan: $5,000,000,000.00 2009
Turkmen Economy
# 108 Mozambique: $4,990,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Mozambican Economy
# 109 Moldova: $4,618,000,000.00 2010-09-30
Moldovan Economy
# 110 Nepal: $4,500,000,000.00 2009
Nepalese Economy
# 111 Cambodia: $4,338,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Cambodian Economy
# 112 Trinidad and Tobago: $4,303,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Tobagonian Economy
# 113 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: $4,300,000,000.00 2009
Congolese Economy
# 114 Ethiopia: $4,289,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ethiopian Economy
# 115 Uzbekistan: $4,236,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Uzbekistani Economy
# 116 Algeria: $4,138,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Algerian Economy
# 117 Nicaragua: $4,030,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Nicaraguan Economy
# 118 Senegal: $3,885,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Senegalese Economy
# 119 Kyrgyzstan: $3,738,000,000.00 2010-06-30
Kyrgyzstani Economy
# 120 Honduras: $3,540,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Honduran Economy
# 121 Zambia: $3,495,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Zambian Economy
# 122 Georgia: $3,381,000,000.00 2009-12-31
Georgian Economy
# 123 Cameroon: $3,344,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Cameroonian Economy
# 124 Azerbaijan: $3,221,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Azerbaijani Economy
# 125 Liberia: $3,200,000,000.00 2005
Liberian Economy
# 126 Macau: $3,100,000,000.00 2004
Chinese Economy
# 127 Iceland: $3,073,000,000.00 2002
Icelandic Economy
# 128 Guinea: $3,072,000,000.00 2009-12-31
Guinean Economy
# 129 Somalia: $3,000,000,000.00 2001
Somali Economy
# 130 Madagascar: $2,973,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Malagasy Economy
# 131 Benin: $2,894,000,000.00 2009-12-31
Beninese Economy
# 132 Uganda: $2,888,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Ugandan Economy
# 133 Bolivia: $2,864,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Bolivian Economy
# 134 Albania: $2,810,000,000.00 2009
Albanian Economy
# 135 Mali: $2,800,000,000.00 2002
Malian Economy
# 136 Afghanistan: $2,700,000,000.00 2009
Afghan Economy
# 137 Netherlands Antilles: $2,680,000,000.00 2004
Dutch Antillean Economy
# 138 Mauritania: $2,500,000,000.00 2000
Mauritanian Economy
# 139 Paraguay: $2,445,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Paraguayan Economy
# 140 Gabon: $2,374,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Gabonese Economy
# 141 Namibia: $2,373,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Namibian Economy
# 142 Botswana: $2,222,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Motswana -Batswana Economy
# 143 Niger: $2,100,000,000.00 2003
Nigerien Economy
# 144 Burkina Faso: $2,002,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Burkinabe Economy
# 145 Togo: $2,000,000,000.00 2005
Togolese Economy
# 146 Tajikistan: $1,997,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Tajikistani Economy
# 147 Mongolia: $1,860,000,000.00 2009
Mongolian Economy
# 148 Sierra Leone: $1,610,000,000.00 2003
Sierra Leonean Economy
# 149 Chad: $1,600,000,000.00 2005
Chadian Economy
# 150 Papua New Guinea: $1,548,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Papua New Guinean Economy
# 151 Rwanda: $1,400,000,000.00 2004
Rwandan Economy
# 152 Seychelles: $1,374,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Seychellois Economy
# 153 Malawi: $1,213,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Malawian Economy
# 154 Burundi: $1,200,000,000.00 2003
Burundian Economy
# 155 Central African Republic: $1,153,000,000.00 2007
Central African Economy
# 156 Belize: $1,010,000,000.00 2009
Belizean Economy
# 157 Maldives: $943,000,000.00 2010
Maldivian Economy
# 158 Guinea-Bissau: $941,500,000.00 2000
Guinean Economy
# 159 Bhutan: $836,000,000.00 2009
Bhutanese Economy
# 160 Equatorial Guinea: $832,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Equatorial Guinean Economy
# 161 Guyana: $804,300,000.00 2008-09-30
Guyanese Economy
# 162 French Guiana: $800,300,000.00 2003
Economy
# 163 Barbados: $668,000,000.00 2003
Barbadian Economy
# 164 Lesotho: $647,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Basotho Economy
# 165 Gambia, The: $530,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Gambian Economy
# 166 Suriname: $504,300,000.00 2005
Surinamese Economy
# 167 Swaziland: $497,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Swazi Economy
# 168 Haiti: $494,000,000.00 2010-12-31
Haitian Economy
# 169 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: $479,000,000.00 2010
Saint Vincentian Economy
# 170 Aruba: $478,600,000.00 2005
Aruban Economy
# 171 Djibouti: $428,000,000.00 2006
Djiboutian Economy
# 172 Antigua and Barbuda: $359,800,000.00 2007
Barbudan Economy
# 173 Grenada: $347,000,000.00 2004
Grenadian Economy
# 174 Bahamas, The: $342,600,000.00 2004
Bahamian Economy
# 175 Cape Verde: $325,000,000.00 2002
Cape Verdean Economy
# 176 São Tomé and PrÃncipe: $318,000,000.00 2002
Sao Tomean Economy
# 177 Saint Kitts and Nevis: $314,000,000.00 2004
Nevisian Economy
# 178 Eritrea: $311,000,000.00 2000
Eritrean Economy
# 179 Saint Lucia: $257,000,000.00 2004
Saint Lucian Economy
# 180 Comoros: $232,000,000.00 2000
Comoran Economy
# 181 Dominica: $213,000,000.00 2004
Dominican Economy
# 182 Samoa: $177,000,000.00 2004
Samoan Economy
# 183 Solomon Islands: $166,000,000.00 2004
Solomon Islander Economy
# 184 Bermuda: $145,000,000.00 2003
Bermudian Economy
# 185 Cook Islands: $141,000,000.00 1996
Cook Islander Economy
# 186 Fiji: $127,000,000.00 2004
Fijian Economy
= 187 Gaza Strip: $108,000,000.00 1997
Economy
= 187 West Bank: $108,000,000.00 1997
Economy
# 189 Marshall Islands: $87,000,000.00 2008
Marshallese Economy
# 190 Vanuatu: $81,200,000.00 2004
- Economy
# 191 Tonga: $80,700,000.00 2004
Tongan Economy
# 192 New Caledonia: $79,000,000.00 1998
New Caledonian Economy
# 193 Cayman Islands: $70,000,000.00 1996
Caymanian Economy
# 194 Faroe Islands: $68,100,000.00 2006
Faroese Economy
# 195 Greenland: $58,000,000.00 2009
Greenlandic Economy
# 196 Micronesia, Federated States of: $53,100,000.00 2003
Micronesian Economy
# 197 British Virgin Islands: $36,100,000.00 1997
British Virgin Islander Economy
# 198 Nauru: $33,300,000.00 2004
Nauruan Economy
# 199 Kiribati: $10,000,000.00 1999
- Economy
# 200 Montserrat: $8,900,000.00 1997
Montserratian Economy
# 201 Anguilla: $8,800,000.00 1998
Anguillan Economy
# 202 Wallis and Futuna: $3,670,000.00 2004
Futunan, Economy
# 203 Niue: $418,000.00 2002
Niuean Economy
# 204 Palau: $0.00 0000-00-00
Palauan Economy
Total: $61,893,320,688,000.00
Sudah cukup lama kita menjadi negara "Merdeka dan Berdaulat" .... Sudah cukup lama kita bangsa Indonesia menjadi alat permainan para Kapitalis-Penjajah Kriminal Internasional dan dikeruk kekayaan Republik ini...dengan cara2 yang tidak adil... dan permainan tekanan Politik-Ekonomi-Keuangan dan lain2...??? Ternyata kuncinya adalah tipuan2 moneter dan Hutangan..yang konon dijadikan alat kendali para Penguasa Asing...yang membuat bingung Rakyat dan Pemimpin Negara ini...??!!..
BalasHapusMungkin tidak semuanya pandir dan dongo...tetapi ada juga yang sadar..dan mungkin mengetahui permainan keji yang menipu dan memeras bangsa dan rakyat Indonesia...ini??!!
Lalu kemana saja para Profesor jagoan yang diagung-agungkan oleh para intektual Indonesia... bahkan dijuluki Begawan Ekonomi...atau julukan2 prestise yang selama ini sangat harum dan menjadi legitimasi keabsahannya...cara keuangan Negara ini dikelola..dan membiarkan ekonomi diutak-atik bangsa lain...dan dengan nyata2..kekayaan negara milik anak bangsa dan rakyat ini digarong dibawa keluar negeri dijadikan harta2 karun oleh para Kapitalis Penjajah Kriminal..Internasional itu...
TIPU2NYA... INDONESIA DARI TAHUN KETAHUN HARUS BERHUTANG...??!! HEHEHE BERHUTANG DENGAN ANGKA US$ RATUSAN MILYAR ATAU TRILUNAN DALAM IDR...???
SAYANGNYA TIDAK ADA YANG ENGEUH..ATAU SADAR...BAHWA INI ADALAH TIPUANNYA ORANG2 JAHIL DENGAN BERBAGAI REKAYASA POLITIK DAN JARINGAN KEUANGAN..... YANG KONON INTERNASIONAL..??!!!
....
SAYA SAMA SEKALI TIDAK BISA YAKIN BAHWA KITA BERHUTANG DENGAN UANG US$ ITU..YANG KONON ITU UANG DICETAK SESUAI DENGAN KEMAUAN DAN PROGRAM MEREKA DEMI MENGATUR GAMIC-PERMAINAN...DUSTA...
SUNGGUH KEJI...MEREKA ITU...DAN ALANGKAH TOLOL DAN BODOLNYA BANGSA INI...??!!
HAI..PARA PROFESOR...HAYYOOO BANGKITKAN DAN AJARKAN DENGAN BENAR ILMU KEUANGAN DAN MONETER INI KEPADA PEMUDA YANG CERDAS..DAN BERJIWA REVOLUSIONER...!!! HAYYOO SAATNYA,, KITA BANGKIT SDR2.... HAYYOO JANGAN TOLOL DAN BLOON...
BANYAK HAL YANG SANGAT GANJIL DAN PENUH KEBINGUNGAN DAN KEBIMBANGAN...DASAR DAN POLA SISTEM KEUANGAN DAN MONETER YANG DITERAPKAN INI...??!! RASANYA ADA KETIDAK BENARAN DAN KETIDAK ADILAN...DAN TERKESAN ADA TIPUAN TERSELUBUNG...???!!..HAYOO MANA AKAL SEHATMU..WAHAI PEMUDA-PEMUDI INDONESIA...???!!! KALIAN NGOMONG POLITIK KARENA INGIN KEDUDUKAN DAN SERAKAH...DASAR JIWA2 OPORTUNIS...PADAHAL SISTEM UANG DAN MONETER INI...BENAR2...SANGAT KOTOR DAN PENUH LIKU2 JAHAT..??!!
BANGKITLAH BANGSAKU...RAKYAT DAN PEMUDA INDONESIA..
HENTIKAN HUTANGAN...DAN BANGUN SISTEM KEUANGAN DAN MONETER YANG RIIL DAN KUAT DENGAN CARA DAN MODEL YANG BENAR-INTEGRAL- OPEN MIND-COMMONSENSE...
SEMOGA ALLAH MEBERIKAN KEKUATAN DAN PERSATUAN YANG KOKOH KEPADA BANGSA DAN RAKYAT INDONESIA DALAM MEMBANGUN MARTABAT DAN KESEJAHTERAAN BANGSA-RAKYAT-NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA SEUTUHNYA-SELURUHNYA.... MERDEKA..!!! AAMIIN