OSO's Debt Watch - May 2010

GDP = $14.6014 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2010 Q1 first estimate)
Public Debt = $8.35552685332603 Trillion (2010-04-28)
Total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities = $3.7505 Trillion (2010-03-01)
Debt/GDP ratio = 57.22%
Foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio = 25.69%
Population = 309,212,311 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2010-03-01)
GDP per capita = $47,221.28
Public Debt / person = $27,021.97
Foreign Public Debt/ person = $12,129.21
GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person = $20,199.30
Tax Receipts = $2.068549 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01)
Tax Receipts as percentage of GDP = 14.17%
Debt/Receipt ratio² = 403.93%
Federal Government Outlays = $3.419868 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01)
Federal Government Outlays as percentage of GDP = 23.42%
For every $1.00 the US government gains, it spends $1.65
Fiscal Surplus/Deficit = -$1.35132 Trillion
Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP = -9.25%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross, Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01) = $0.395915 Trillion
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue = 19.14%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP = 2.71%

Notes:

• I will now update every month rather than every week to ensure that all data is current.
  
• GDP increase of 3.2% has reduced public debt/gdp ratio from 57.76% to 57.22%.
• Americans owe $23.97 more than they did last month, but are worth $477.35 more than they were last month.
  
• Federal deficit has dropped to 9.25% of GDP
  

In October 2008, GDP was $14.2003 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2008 Q4 final estimate)
In October 2008, Public Debt was $6.18964742400511 Trillion (2008-10-20)
In October 2008, the total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities was $2.9797 Trillion
In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.59%
In October 2008, the foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio was 20.98%
In October 2008, the Population (resident population + Armed Forces overseas) was 305,554,049 (2008-10-01)
In October 2008, GDP per capita was $46,473.94
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,257.13
In October 2008, Foreign Public Debt/ person was $9,751.79
In October 2008, GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person was $26,216.81
In October 2008, Tax Receipts were $2.578156 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Tax Receipts represented 18.16% of GDP
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt² ratio was 240.08%
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays were $2.747197 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays represented 19.35% of GDP
In October 2008, for every $1.00 the US government gained, it spent $1.07.
In October 2008, the Fiscal Surplus/Deficit was −$0.169041 Trillion
In October 2008 the Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP was -1.19%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statements) was $0.429994 Trillion
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue was 16.68%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP was 3.03%

The historical tables of the FY2010 budget (page 24-25) show that:

Highest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 20.9% in 1944 and 2000.
Lowest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 2.8% in 1932.
The last time tax receipts were lower than they are now: 13.3% in 1943.
Highest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 43.6% in 1943 and 1944.
Lowest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 3.4% in 1930.
The last time Federal Government outlays were higher than they are now: 24.8% in 1946.
Fiscal Deficit - Worst: -30.3% in 1943
Fiscal Surplus - Best: 4.6% in 1948


¹ Measures total tax receipts/outlays over the previous 12 months from the last month measured. eg April 2009 to March 2010.
² The Debt/Receipt ratio measures government revenue (twelve month moving average) as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

---

Random Thoughts on the irony of Minarchism

Just how limited should "limited government" be? If you believe certain right wing commentators both on the internet and in the real world, "the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.". This quote comes from the introduction to the Wikipedia article on Minarchism, which is probably a better and more descriptive title than "limited government".

Modern day minarchists - virtually all of them from the United States of America - believe that the state's power should be limited to national defence (ie the armed forces), law enforcement (ie the police) and the legal infrastructure to ensure that violations of criminal and civil law are punished (ie courts and prisons).

(EDIT: Please note that I am talking more about populist beliefs of Minarchism that you would find amongst social conservatives in the US Republican Party or in the Tea Party movement.)

In the mind of minarchists, government programs such as health care, education and scientific research should not exist. Responsibility for these areas should be left up to the individual and/or the free market. The argument against such extensions of government involvement in society is that it expands government power, and any expansion of government power is bad because government naturally seeks to oppress. As for the effectiveness of government intervention, many would argue that the government is naturally incompetent and is unable to create any effective intervention at all - thus government programs such as public education are a drain on the economy because any benefit arising from such a program would never be as good as one completely provided by non-government sources (eg private schools, home schooling). Others would argue that even if the benefits of government intervention do outweigh anything individuals and the market can produce, any extension of government power leads to a loss of liberty and must be resisted.

Of course minarchists point towards the "sword" that the state wields as proof of its corruptibility, and this is borne out through historical experience. States have often used the police, the army and the legal system to enforce their sovereignty and law to the detriment of the population it purportedly serves. Failure to pay taxes - including taxes to support public education or health care - along with a failure to submit to laws set down by the state - including laws set up to regulate the behaviour of individuals and of the free market - cannot be maintained by individuals without the state eventually using its power to force people to comply.

Yet the irony of this situation is that minarchists support the very power that the state has that can be used to oppress - the military, the police, the court system and prisons. Moreover the very things that minarchists complain about the government doing - involving itself in education, health care, welfare - exist to benefit society as a whole. So minarchists are fearful that the state will use the "sword" (military, police, legal system, prisons) but want to limit the state merely to sword bearing activities. It's like saying that you're frightened that your next door neighbour might kill you with that axe he's carrying so you try to limit everything he does but you still allow him to carry an axe.

This, of course, is an anarchist argument - that the state is inherently evil and should be abolished, thus allowing individuals and society to carry on without it. The difference between minarchists and anarchists is that a minarchist wants to the government to stay out of everything except the military, the police, the legal system and prisons while an anarchist wants the government to cease existing altogether. Additionally, anarchists are quick to label the police, the military, the legal system and prisons as being extensions of fascism.

So is it possible for the government to provide any form of positive societal intervention (public education, health care, etc) without having any form of "sword"? Is it possible to have a government that does have a place in society but does not have any power in the form of military, police, law enforcement or prisons? I don't think so; besides, it's never been done.

What I would like to point out is that government often defines itself by the sort of power it wields. If the state has the ability to create a better society by, say, providing free health care, then government would define itself by the good that it does in that area: namely reducing infection rates, preventing the spread of communicable diseases, increasing awareness of public health issues and so on. Similarly if the state has the ability to create a better society through public education then it would define itself by the good that it does via public education, namely improving literacy and numeracy rates, providing young people with opportunities that they would not have had otherwise and providing for scientific and technological endeavour to benefit society. If we think of other areas of government involvement in society - such as the importance of intervening in markets in the form of monetary policy, the space program, the building and maintenance of electricity, water and transport infrastructure, environmental legislation and improvement programs - then we will see that governments will define themselves in those areas.

And by "define itself", I'm talking about the role that government sees itself in having in society. And government here refers both to the employees of the state and the representatives we elect to make laws and decisions for us on our behalf.

But if we limit the government to merely minarchism - military, police, legal system, prison - then we will have a state that is defined only by its ability to enforce punitive punishment. We elect people into office whose job it is to enforce punitive punishment and we allow the government to employ only those people involved directly in or in support of punitive punishment. Thus government would only ever wish to justify itself by its ability to punish.

It's no secret that the United States of America has the smallest government system in the western world,* and this along with the world's largest prison population - in both absolute and per capita rates. By being so limited, America's governments (Federal, State and county) define themselves only by that which they are allowed to do best which, in this case, is to wield the "sword".

Thus the irony is that minarchism actually produces a fear of government while simultaneously allowing the government more power and reason to exercise its ability to punish. By contrast, western democracies that have "mixed" economies (a combination of government intervention and a free market) have larger governments but less desire to enforce punitive punishment. In fact these nations (mainly western European welfare states and social democracies) have smaller armies and smaller prisons.

Which leads me to the following conclusion: Small governments are more likely to oppress, while large(r) governments are less likely to oppress.

(And yes I am well aware of the Soviet Union. Government oppression in Communist states occurs when the state completely dominates and has eliminated any form of market and individual choice. But I am not arguing for communism but for mixed economies where both government and market co-exist happily)

* Government spending as percentage of GDP. Currently 25% in the US but rarely above 20% before the downturn (see historical tables of the FY2009 budget for more detailed figures). Most western nations have government spending beyond 30% of GDP (eg Japan is 39%)

EDIT: Here's a quick and nasty table I set up that highlights the size of respective national governments:

So my statement It's no secret that the United States of America has the smallest government system in the western world is true in the sense of "Western World" being western democracies. Only Mexico could be classed as worse. The nations in blue are nations whose GDP per capita (PPP) is less than 25% of the US.

It needs to be pointed out that the list here only uses data based on national government spending, rather than total government spending (ie spending by state and local governments). Figures for the US do not include this data, while France, Sweden and the United Kingdom are Unitary States, which mean that the figures used here accurately reflect the spending/gdp ratio.

Total government spending in the US is around 10 percentage points above the national level, which means that current total government spending represents around 33.5% of US GDP. See here.

A cursory examination of the Gini levels for each of these nations is interesting too:

Deficits and Debts - Punishing the irresponsible?

Poor Greece. Every step of the way the market seems to punish them. Just when they announce some decent deficit cutting measures, Eurostat comes out and publishes data which indicates the situation for Greece was more dire than was thought... and that after a number of revisions which were pessimistic anyway. The Eurostat publication is here and makes fascinating reading (that is, if you like horror stories).

Greece, of course, is one of the five PIIGS nations that people are worried about, the others being Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain. These five nations have been identified as having serious government debt problems, a situation that has been reflected in bond markets in recent months. What has been fascinating is the effect of the common currency upon these bond markets. With the PIIGS nations being part of the Eurozone, investors who have been scared away by these nations have not had the luxury of a currency meltdown. Instead, the problem has been shown up in the bond markets. So while German and Greek government bonds are both denominated in Euro, there is a spread between them that shows the risk involved (currently German 10 year bonds are 3.07% while Greek 10 year bonds are 8.07%). While some have argued that this shows the inherent weakness of a common currency area, I actually believe that the Eurozone concept will be proven strong and correct in the end - after all, those people in Greece and Ireland who saved their money have not been punished by having their real wealth depreciated by a plummeting currency and the inflation that would naturally result from it.

But I have also noticed amongst commentators and news reports that the situation is pretty bad amongst all PIIGS nations, and that Greece and Ireland are simply the first to fall. Spain, they say, should be next.

But in order to determine which country is at the most risk of sovereign default (ie choosing not to pay debt) I have devised an index that takes into account both the level of sovereign debt and the current budget deficits of the countries involved. I have made the assumption that a budget deficit of 10% of GDP is equal in risk to a debt level of 100% of GDP, and granted equal weight to these two figures. Mathematically it is quite simple - it is (Budget Deficit) + (Debt/100). So a country with a budget deficit of 5% of GDP and debt of 50% of GDP would result in a risk index level of 10. Here is what happens if you add the various numbers into a spreadsheet:

The PIIGS nations are there in bold blue, and it is quite obvious from their position on the chart that their risk of default is higher than most - Greece especially with a huge deficit added to a huge debt already incurred. What is surprising, though (but not to me), is the position of the United Kingdom and the United States. The markets have rightly savaged Ireland and Greece in recent months for their elevated risk levels, but any move to punish Spain, Italy and Portugal before the UK seems illogical. The UK has both a high level of debt and a high deficit which, when combined, is worse than Spain, Italy and Portugal.

I have put two figures in for the United States. United States (1) takes only public debt into account while United States (2) takes all government debt (including intragovernmental debt). You can see the two figures here. As I debated which version of US debt levels should be added, I read the fine print of the Eurostat report which indicated that the debt levels for the various European Union governments took into account total liabilities and not just money it owed to the public. As a result, United States (2) is the best figure in terms of comparison to the other nations on this list. Of course we can see that the US figures are just as bad as that of the UK.

What makes me doubt the effectiveness of this index is the situation with Japan. While Japan's government deficit is huge, only about 50% of it is owed to the public. Moreover, the Japanese economy enjoys large current account surpluses, which means that while the Japanese government has incurred a lot of debt, the Japanese private sector is very strong - and that needs to be added into the equation.

At this point in the business cycle and, taking into account the Global Financial Crisis, any index figure over 10 should be worrisome. So while the Eurozone (EA16) and European Union (EU27) are less risky than the US and the UK individually, how each nation and currency zone responds to the eventual recovery will be important. So while the numbers may look bad now, they will look very different in 4-5 years.

Data for EU countries is from Eurostat.
Data for Norway is from the CIA and The Economist.
Data for Japan is from the CIA and The Economist.
Data for Switzerland is from the CIA and The Economist.
Data for the US is from my own analysis.

Dune vs Avatar

I'm not unhappy with a Conservative win in the UK

After reading about the TV debate in the UK between Gordon Brown, David Cameron (first picture) and Nick Clegg, I decided to watch the entire 90 minute spectacle. As a result, I am reasonably happy with the idea of a conservative win in the next UK elections, and with David Cameron as the next Prime Minister.

I watched the debate primarily to see how well Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg did, as it was reported that he "won" the debate. After watching his performance, I am suitably impressed with the guy, which is of course influenced by my own personal identification with Social Liberalism (the ideology the Lib Dems generally hold).

My preferred UK election outcome is for the Lib Dems to win a majority in Parliament, but, barring any massive swings over the next few weeks, that is unlikely to happen. The most likely result is for the Conservatives to form a minority government with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and with Labor in opposition - and that is my preferred "realistic" result. I do not wish for a Labor minority government with Lib Dems holding the balance of power, and I do not wish for a Labor majority.

The problem is that Labor under Tony Blair, and now under Gordon Brown, has failed to live up to its promises from the 1990s. Labor billed itself as "New Labor" but ended up involving the UK in the Iraq war as well as overseeing a housing market crash that could have been avoided if good policies had been implemented. While it would be unfair to blame Gordon Brown and Labor for the current UK recession, there is no doubt in my mind that their policies helped it to occur and have exacerbated it. All these things were in my mind as I watched Gordon Brown, who is probably quite a nice bloke, during the debate. The result for me was that nothing Brown said or promised or debated had any substance. I lacked trust in him, which affected everything he tried. Moreover he looked tired and craggy in comparison to the two younger leaders who were in the debate with him.

What made me like David Cameron is that he was not an American Republican party operative denouncing socialism nor promoting capitalism nor painting his political enemies as enemies who must be destroyed. Cameron proved to me that conservatives in Britain at least have managed to avoid the hard line ideological disease that is afflicting the American right. In light of the current health care debate in the US, Cameron stuck by his support of public schools and the National Health Service (NHS). When confronted with the tax cuts promised by Nick Clegg for the Lib Dems, Cameron tut-tutted the plan, arguing that such tax cuts could not be supported. These were not the words of a boilerplate ideological conservative but someone who is aiming at convincing the centre of the political spectrum. Naturally he also tut-tutted Gordon Brown's new tax proposals - no conservative worth his salt would ever support an increase in taxes - but was not an "over the top" conservative. Of course I'm not saying I completely trust Cameron's promises, but what it does show me is that the Tories are just not the radical right every leftist wants us to believe. Case in point: Thatcher did not destroy British public schools in the 1980s and the NHS still existed under her reign. They weren't helped much either, but at least the Thatcherite conservatives had enough brains to leave them in place. Cameron and the conservatives of Britain today are unlikely to have moved from this position, which means that any potential conservative government under Cameron is unlikely to see many major anti-welfare policies (eg massive cuts to public education and public health) that would preclude any informed centrist or non-partisan centre-leftist from voting for them. Of course I do expect the conservatives to make some painful budget cuts to rebalance the budget, to make some more reactionary anti-immigration policies and to favour the rich in any new tax system they introduce - but certainly nothing too radical for the British people to be uncomfortable with.

Nick Clegg (second picture) won the night by channelling Barack Obama. He presented himself as personifying hope and change - both of these two subjects were strong in his presentation. By contrast he portrayed both the Conservatives and the Labor party as being ineffectual and entrenched by the system. Clegg entered the debate without the same amount of baggage carried by both parties, which meant that neither Cameron nor Brown were able to throw any effective mud at him. He entered the debate clean and exited it just as clean. The Lib Dems, having not been in power ever, do not have the same level of public mistrust that both the Labor party and the conservatives have. Moreover, neither Brown nor Cameron were able to make any warnings that the Lib Dems lack experience or are too silly or too radical for Britain. Confident that the UK's grotesque "first past the post" electoral system will guarantee victory for one of two parties, it was obvious that Brown and Cameron underestimated Clegg and his ability to charm disaffected centrist independents.

Clegg and the Lib Dems do suffer in one big area - that of national defence. While arguing that Trident is no longer a plausible form of national defence (which is right), he is mistaken if he thinks that abolishing it would magically result in unspent billions of pounds that can be used to fund tax cuts and pay back the deficit. While the cost of maintaining and upgrading Trident would be huge, no single program can deliver the savings he and the Lib Dems propose - and that brings into doubt the tax cuts the Lib Dems are proposing. But there was more to this issue than was debated - what is the position of the Lib Dems towards nuclear weapons in general? While Trident is an important cog in Britain's nuclear deterrent, surely it is not the only cog? Like the US I am sure that the UK has a stock of short range tactical nuclear missiles along with aircraft deliverable nuclear weapons. Neither Brown nor Cameron was able to press Clegg on this matter, something they should do over the coming weeks until the election. Moreover, Clegg's complaint that a British company which makes Mine Rollers for American armoured vehicles does not take into account basic issues such as asking whether such mine rollers would fit onto British tanks. Moreover the idea that Britain has a company making such wonderful defence equipment should actually end up being a positive but Clegg used it as a negative. This shows me that Clegg and the Lib Dems do not have a very strong or informed national defence position apart from ditching Trident.

To be honest, though, I am looking forward to the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and for a potentially competent conservative minority government making some good decisions for the UK. Labor, though, faces a sullen future - they failed to gain power when they were their most leftist (during the Thatcher years) and they failed to govern properly when they were at their most centrist (during the Blair/Brown years). Labor needs to look at themselves honestly and clean their ranks of both crabby ideologues and vapid pundits in order to reinvent themselves.

One last thing... as I have mentioned before, Britain's electoral system is simply too grotesque to be pased off as a proper representative democracy. Changes to Parliament and the House of Lords were discussed during the debate and fortunately no party leader argued for the status quo, which means that some changes in the system could be ahead - but only if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power... I hardly think the Conservatives would want to change a system that granted them political power.

OSO's Debt Watch - May 2010

GDP = $14.6014 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2010 Q1 first estimate)
Public Debt = $8.35552685332603 Trillion (2010-04-28)
Total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities = $3.7505 Trillion (2010-03-01)
Debt/GDP ratio = 57.22%
Foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio = 25.69%
Population = 309,212,311 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2010-03-01)
GDP per capita = $47,221.28
Public Debt / person = $27,021.97
Foreign Public Debt/ person = $12,129.21
GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person = $20,199.30
Tax Receipts = $2.068549 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01)
Tax Receipts as percentage of GDP = 14.17%
Debt/Receipt ratio² = 403.93%
Federal Government Outlays = $3.419868 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01)
Federal Government Outlays as percentage of GDP = 23.42%
For every $1.00 the US government gains, it spends $1.65
Fiscal Surplus/Deficit = -$1.35132 Trillion
Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP = -9.25%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross, Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-03-01) = $0.395915 Trillion
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue = 19.14%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP = 2.71%

Notes:

• I will now update every month rather than every week to ensure that all data is current.
  
• GDP increase of 3.2% has reduced public debt/gdp ratio from 57.76% to 57.22%.
• Americans owe $23.97 more than they did last month, but are worth $477.35 more than they were last month.
  
• Federal deficit has dropped to 9.25% of GDP
  

In October 2008, GDP was $14.2003 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2008 Q4 final estimate)
In October 2008, Public Debt was $6.18964742400511 Trillion (2008-10-20)
In October 2008, the total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities was $2.9797 Trillion
In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.59%
In October 2008, the foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio was 20.98%
In October 2008, the Population (resident population + Armed Forces overseas) was 305,554,049 (2008-10-01)
In October 2008, GDP per capita was $46,473.94
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,257.13
In October 2008, Foreign Public Debt/ person was $9,751.79
In October 2008, GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person was $26,216.81
In October 2008, Tax Receipts were $2.578156 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Tax Receipts represented 18.16% of GDP
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt² ratio was 240.08%
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays were $2.747197 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays represented 19.35% of GDP
In October 2008, for every $1.00 the US government gained, it spent $1.07.
In October 2008, the Fiscal Surplus/Deficit was −$0.169041 Trillion
In October 2008 the Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP was -1.19%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statements) was $0.429994 Trillion
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue was 16.68%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP was 3.03%

The historical tables of the FY2010 budget (page 24-25) show that:

Highest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 20.9% in 1944 and 2000.
Lowest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 2.8% in 1932.
The last time tax receipts were lower than they are now: 13.3% in 1943.
Highest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 43.6% in 1943 and 1944.
Lowest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 3.4% in 1930.
The last time Federal Government outlays were higher than they are now: 24.8% in 1946.
Fiscal Deficit - Worst: -30.3% in 1943
Fiscal Surplus - Best: 4.6% in 1948


¹ Measures total tax receipts/outlays over the previous 12 months from the last month measured. eg April 2009 to March 2010.
² The Debt/Receipt ratio measures government revenue (twelve month moving average) as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

---

Palin the Rock Star?

Sarah Palin is in the news again, this time she's accused of being a Diva:

The requirements stated that first-class transport should be provided for Palin, including return trips to and from Anchorage, Alaska, a private jet that "MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger (as defined by interior cabin space) for West Coast Events; or a Hawker 800 or larger (as defined by interior cabin space) for East Coast Events", one suite and two single rooms be booked in a "deluxe hotel", "laptop computer and printer (fully stocked with paper) and to provide access to high-speed internet and WiFi".

For her actual speech, "unopened bottled still water (2 bottles) and bendable straws are to be placed in or near the wooden lectern", while questions had to be screened.

"For Q&A, are to be collected from the audience in advance, pre-screened and a designated representative ... shall ask questions directly of the Speaker to avoid delay time with a roving microphone in the audience," the contract stated.

Look I'm no fan of Sarah Palin - her policies and her lack of knowledge immediately rule out any potential support I might have - but this "revelation" is hardly going to bother me.

The fact is that Sarah Palin is a famous person - like a rock star or an athlete or an actor. As a result of her fame she has certain differences between her and Joe normal about how her life is led. Palin can't walk into a supermarket without causing a stir, and can't walk down the street without causing a minor riot. In order to make her life more bearable and more common sense, she has to hire a small army of minders and security people to follow her around wherever she goes lest she be accosted by rabid fans or rabid enemies. Public appearances require contracts to be signed in much the same way as a touring rock band requires contracts signed as well.

The inclusion of things such as water bottles, bendable straws and certain types of private jet into a contract is quite normal for someone as popular as Palin. if you look at similar contracts for George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and touring bands like U2, things such as those "disclosed" in the Palin contract are present.

Perhaps the most infamous performance contract in rock history was that required by the band Van Halen - namely that a bowl of M&Ms be present in the band's dressing room before the performance, though with all the brown ones removed. Yet what seemed like an illogical request that hinted at the band's unstable ego was actually a deliberate attempt to ensure that the promoters kept the contract, especially when safety was concerned. Van Halen didn't really care two hoots about brown M&Ms, but if they discovered that brown M&Ms were present in the bowl then it was a possible indication that the promoters did not honour other, more important, parts of the contract (such as electrical safety). The presence of bendy straws in Palin's contract may, in fact, be a contractual necessity to prevent bigger problems (especially those faced by famous people interacting with the public).

Rock bands and other famous musicians also include food and drink requirements for the after show party. One band I know had a performance contract which stipulated that certain wine varieties be present while Shiraz must not be included at all. While it made me goggle at the lifestyles of the rich and famous, I nevertheless saw the importance of keeping the rich and famous happy if people wish to make money out of them.

So for me Palin's "performance contract" is nothing more surprising nor controversial as other performance contracts that famous people use. It must be a slow news day for the media if they think such a report is newsworthy.

Checking sources

Source #1

1641 -C- NO FUEL FLOW NOW FUEL FLOW ON NUMBER AH FOUR ENGINE
1644 -F- HOW CAN WE HAVE NO FUEL FLOW IF WE GOT N1 AND EGT
1648 -C- WE MUST BE AH LOSIN' FUEL LIKE MAD OUTTA THAT -
1650 -F- *
1652 -C- NUMBER FOUR ENGINE YOU GOT THE THING BALANCED ON THE FUEL.
1657 -E- AH YES FUEL'S BALANCED.
1659 -C- OKAY
1701 -F- OKAY WATCH YOUR HEADING WATCH YOUR HEADING YOU'RE GOIN DIRECT TO AH YOU WANT TO GO DIRECT HONOLULU.
1705 -C- YEAH
1706 -E- OKAY I'M GOING DOWNSTAIRS TO SEE WHAT THE # IS GOING ON
1707 -F- YEAH
1708 -C- GO AHEAD AND RUN DOWN AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING

Source #2

I do recall at one stage (probably about 3 minutes after the initial blast) one of the flight crew appearing (I later learned he was the engineer) and in looking at the damage turning quite ashen and mouthing to himself "f**k!". For some bizarre reason that scared me more than the hole in the aircraft!. He soon disappeared back to the cockpit.

Source #1 (further on)

1753 -E- THE WHOLE RIGHT SIDE...
1759 -E- THE RIGHT SIDE IS GONE FROM ABOUT THE AH ONE RIGHT BACK IT'S JUST OPEN YOU'RE JUST LOOKIN' OUTSIDE
1759 -R- UNITED EIGHT ELEVEN HEAVY ROGER
1807 -C- WADDAYA MEAN PIECES-
1808 -E- LOOKS LIKE A BOMB
1809 -F- FUSELAGE-
1810 -E- YES FUSELAGE IT'S JUST OPEN
1812 -C- OKAY IT LOOKS LIKE WE GOT A BOMB AH THAT WENT OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE
1815 -C- AH THE WHOLE RIGHT SIDE IS GONE
1817 -E- FROM ABOUT ONE RIGHT BACK TO AH-
1820 -F- ANYBODY-
1822 -E- SOME PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY GONE - I DON'T KNOW
1824 -C- WE GOT A REAL PROBLEM HERE

Source #3: Picture taken by NTSB after the plane landed. The view is through the hole on the r/h side and is taken from inside the aircraft.

United Airlines flight 811.

Something fishy

So what happens if 25% of the vote goes to each major UK party and to independents? It appears that the Labor Party ends up with 9 seats short of a majority, independents gain no more seats than they had when they had 8% of the votes, the Tories lose 4 seats and the Lib Dems win 38.

So either the UK electoral system is simply awful, or the BBC's Election Seat Calculator is simply awful.

Is the US economy slowing?

Well maybe according to my study of real interest rates. Here we go:

In the wonderful "Spread Sheet"^TM screenshot you see above, you can see the columns marked 10 year bonds and inflation - all of which were derived from data from The Economist magazine (I do have better data sources for the US, namely this and this, but I use The Economist as a way of comparing rates all over the world). Weekly Real Interest rates can be seen there in column D, which are essentially (Bond Rate) minus (Inflation Rate). Now since real interest rates go up and down because the bond market goes up and down, I've focused mainly upon column E, which is the average Real Interest Rates of the previous 6 weeks. Now Column F looks at the changes over the six weekly period and we see that things were going along quite swimmingly on 2010-03-25 but have hit a wall in the two weeks since then. From dropping to a 1.00% real interest rate on 2010-02-25, rates have increased to 1.40% since then.

The data shows that this increase in real interest rates is due to two things - a drop in inflation (from 2.6% to 2.1%) and an increase in bond rates (from a low of 3.62% to 3.86%). In fact 10 year bonds passed the 4% barrier on 2010-04-05, which was the first time since 2008-10-31. There are probably multiple reasons for the increase in bond rates - certainly the booming stockmarket could be one as investors offload safer assets to buy shares, and the Wilshire 5000 looks like this:

(image from here)

...which shows a nice increase in broad share prices since early February, the period in which real interest rates have begun to increase. The US Dollar index hasn't gone anywhere, which indicates that people aren't selling off their US Dollar holdings to buy overseas bonds.

Certainly the situation looks like either a return to the low-inflation growth experienced in the late 90s or else is a harbinger of a slowdown - inflation has crept up and has peaked and is now heading down the other side. The pessimist in me sees this as a more likely scenario than a low-inflation boom - after all the rising tide of Obama's stimulus has to return back to the sea eventually, and this is usually what occurs when any Keynesian stimulus program is enacted.

The third possibility is that it is just a minor uptick, as I theorise here, except that the "uptick" has gone up further than it did a week ago.

Collateral Stupidity

I'm one of the millions of people on the internet who downloaded and watched the "Collateral Murder" video, showing an airstrike on a group of Iraqi men in Baghdad on July 12th 2007. From the point of view of the pilots, we see a group of suspicious men seemingly armed with assaults rifles and at least one rocket propelled grenade (RPG) take up position on a corner from which they could ambush a potential American convoy. The group, is watched by a number of AH-64 Apache Gunship helicopters, and the video was taken through the gun camera of these helicopters. Not only do you hear (and also read, thanks to the subtitles) the alarmed chatter between the pilots, but communications with ground forces and the sound of the 30mm cannons firing at the group.

Unfortunately it appears as though the group were not insurgents at all. Two members of the group were Reuters news reporters, one of whom was using a telephoto lens which made it look like he was carrying an RPG. As the video continues and the group is killed by the cannon fire, one of the Reuters reporters manages to escape up the road before collapsing on the sidewalk. A van then pulls up and moves the injured man inside it. Fearful that the insurgents were rescuing their own, the helicopters fire also upon the van, destroying it and killing the reporter and the two men who placed him into the van. Unfortunately it appears as though the men in the van were trying to help the injured man and were not insurgents at all. Moreover, the video shows images of two children inside the van who were seriously injured by the attack - the children were rushed to hospital by the US troops who eventually arrived at the scene.

Naturally anti-war proponents have used this video as an example of the heartless killers in the US armed forces who supposedly enjoy mowing down civilians and children (when informed that a child was injured one of the pilots openly placed the blame on the van drivers for taking children into a war zone). So how do I, as an opponent of America's invasion and conquest and occupation of Iraq, think?

The first thing I want to say is that the pilots are not to blame in any way. Given the stresses involved in making snap decisions inside a cockpit thousands of metres away from targets, the pilots acted in the only way they knew how. That the men were not insurgents could not be determined, and that two men were reporters could not be determined either. In hindsight it was easy to spot the telephoto lens of one of the reporters but you could quite easily mistake it for an RPG in the heat of the moment. The children were not clearly visible in the van either. In short, the pilots believed that they were engaging the enemy. This was a terrible mistake, of course, but there was no way of them knowing that it was a mistake. Moreover, the comment by one of the pilots criticising the men in the van for taking children into a warzone should be taken at face value only and not as an example of American callousness - after all, if the men in the van were the enemy, then why would they bring children along? No, the pilots did nothing wrong that I could see. Their deed was terrible but they only did what they were trained and ordered to do. Without any clear indication that the people involved were civilians (which the video does not show) the pilots needed to treat the people as insurgents.

The second thing I want to say is that this incident shows the limits of using military force in an urban environment. The war machines of the US military are designed for conventional warfare. The AH-64 Apache gunship helicopter is designed to knock out armoured vehicles on a battlefield - its 30mm cannon can reduce tanks to wrecks so you can imagine what effect this cannon would have upon the human targets shown in the video (which is thankfully black and white). The US military is NOT designed, however, to effectively police a foreign city full of insurgents engaging in a guerilla war against the Americans and the American backed Iraqi forces. While there is no doubt that the sheer volume of firepower directed by American forces can completely destroy any group of enemy (as proven by this video), there will always be the danger of collateral damage - namely the deaths of civilians (as proven, again, by this video). What we see in this tragic video is an example of the sheer stupidity of American battlefield doctrine when applied to an urban environment full of civilians. In such an environment the margin for error is just non-existent. The pilots had to weigh up the chance that they were firing on civilians against the chance that they were firing on insurgents - had they chosen not to act then there would be the real possibility of American troops being killed by these people. Faced with the prospect of either possibly killing civilians or taking a course of action that would result in the deaths of American troops, the pilots made the only choice that made sense. So while I do not blame the pilots in any way for their action, I do blame the system and the generals who placed them into this intolerable situation.

The last thing I want to say is that this incident proves beyond doubt that a different strategy is required. It is fortunate that levels of violence have dissipated considerably since the 2003 invasion (and 2007, when this incident occurred), but there are lessons to be learned. The amount of Iraqis who have died since "Mission Accomplished" is criminal, and reflects very poorly upon the morality and upon the competence of those responsible for planning the war and its aftermath. Rebuilding Iraq and improving the social conditions of Iraqis should be far more important than setting up a puppet democracy or simply maintaining the status quo. I have never had faith in America's ability for nation building and I think that the only real solution is for US forces to withdraw and be replaced by the forces of neutral nations under the aegis of the United Nations. The UN has successfully created peace in the Balkans to the point where most Balkan nations are now seriously contemplating joining the European Union (Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo). I say let the UN take over Iraq - and Afghanistan as well - and move US troops back to America.

OSO's Debt Watch

GDP = $14.4538 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2009 Q4 final estimate)
Public Debt = $8.31688861959741 Trillion (2010-04-07)
Total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities = $3.7061 Trillion (2010-02-01)
Debt/GDP ratio = 57.54%
Foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio = 25.64%
Population = 309,212,311 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2010-03-01)
GDP per capita = $46,743.93
Public Debt / person = $26,897.02
Foreign Public Debt/ person = $11,985.62
GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person = $19,846.92
Tax Receipts = $2.044117 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01)
Tax Receipts as percentage of GDP = 14.14%
Debt/Receipt ratio² = 406.87%
Federal Government Outlays = $3.521637 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01)
Federal Government Outlays as percentage of GDP = 24.36%
For every $1.00 the US government gains, it spends $1.72
Fiscal Surplus/Deficit = -$1.47752 Trillion
Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP = -10.22%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross, Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01) = $0.398852 Trillion
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue = 19.51%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP = 2.76%

Notes:

• Debt/GDP ratio increases to 57.54%. It was 57.36% last week.
  
• Debt/Receipt Ratio reaches 406.87%. It was 405.56% last week.
• Americans now owe an extra $86.84 than they did a week ago.

In October 2008, GDP was $14.2003 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2008 Q4 final estimate)
In October 2008, Public Debt was $6.18964742400511 Trillion (2008-10-20)
In October 2008, the total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities was $2.9797 Trillion
In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.59%
In October 2008, the foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio was 20.98%
In October 2008, the Population (resident population + Armed Forces overseas) was 305,554,049 (2008-10-01)
In October 2008, GDP per capita was $46,473.94
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,257.13
In October 2008, Foreign Public Debt/ person was $9,751.79
In October 2008, GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person was $26,216.81
In October 2008, Tax Receipts were $2.578156 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Tax Receipts represented 18.16% of GDP
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt² ratio was 240.08%
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays were $2.747197 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays represented 19.35% of GDP
In October 2008, for every $1.00 the US government gained, it spent $1.07.
In October 2008, the Fiscal Surplus/Deficit was −$0.169041 Trillion
In October 2008 the Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP was -1.19%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statements) was $0.429994 Trillion
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue was 16.68%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP was 3.03%

The historical tables of the FY2010 budget (page 24-25) show that:

Highest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 20.9% in 1944 and 2000.
Lowest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 2.8% in 1932.
The last time tax receipts were lower than they are now: 13.3% in 1943.
Highest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 43.6% in 1943 and 1944.
Lowest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 3.4% in 1930.
The last time Federal Government outlays were higher than they are now: 24.8% in 1946.
Fiscal Deficit - Worst: -30.3% in 1943
Fiscal Surplus - Best: 4.6% in 1948


¹ Measures total tax receipts/outlays over the previous 12 months from the last month measured. eg April 2009 to March 2010.
² The Debt/Receipt ratio measures government revenue (twelve month moving average) as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

---

Important

Farm the whales?

Save the Whales! Environmentalists for decades have been closely associated with this particular campaign and are directly responsible for the worldwide ban on commercial whaling in 1986. As a result of this ban, whale numbers around the globe have increased - though they are still a small fraction of the amount that existed in the 19th century and before.

Now, however, there is a proposal to allow Japan to have limited commercial whaling as a way to try to control and regulate the practice. Japan has, of course, been openly flouting international law by continuing to allow whaling for "scientific purposes", though it is clear that such practices are simply a front for commercial whaling - as proved by the presence of whale meat in Japanese restaurants and dinner tables.

Naturally such a proposal will result in an outcry - no! Whales are noble creatures! To use them for food and other commercial reasons is immoral! Allowing commercial whaling will cause the extinction of another of earth's animals! We cannot condone murder!

But the only way for people to adhere to such an argument is for them to be vegetarians, specifically vegetarians who believe that killing animals is murder. The vast majority of us - myself included - are happily omnivorous. Yet it is one thing to eat whale meat - it is another thing to do it and cause the death of a species. Chickens, cows and pigs have all died so that I and millions can enjoy our KFC bucket, our medium rare steak or our bacon and egg breakfast.

The problem is, though, that mainstream society is not vegetarian and is not likely to become vegetarian by choice. Poorer people around the world are vegetarian not by choice but by circumstance - but for us in rich, industrialised countries, we are happy to eat meat. The problem is that the environmental movement contains more than its fair share of vegetarians who morally oppose eating animals so that, if they get their way, no one would eat them. For carnivorous greenies like myself, that is a problem.

I've written previously about our coming vegetarian future, yet this situation will come about simply by necessity rather than choice: the limited space available for farmers to meet future demand will be dedicated to grains and legumes rather than livestock as the food energy output of the former is greater than the latter. Cows, pigs, sheep and chickens will still be used for food in the future - but they will be much more expensive than they are today.

Whales, of course, are no different to any other animal when it comes to consumption. If we can happily eat cows and pigs and fish, we can also happily eat whale. The difference, though, is that whales are endangered while cows and pigs are not. From this we can come to some sort of ethical conclusion which allows mankind to consume animals so long as we do not cause them inordinate suffering or wipe them out completely.

Such a conclusion is not outside the bounds of Christian teaching either. Christian blogger Byron Smith pointed out that Reformation hero John Calvin could be classed as a "greenie" for this teaching:

The earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation... The custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition that, being content with the frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence, but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits, that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits it to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let everyone regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved.

So the idea is then that even carnivores like yours truly (and you too most likely) have a responsibility to care for the earth that God has provided so that we can live, and that those who degrade the earth and make it worse for future generations are committing a very serious sin.

But let's get back to whales. For centuries mankind has sent fleets of ships into the oceans to hunt and kill whales to provide consumers with food and whale oil. Of course there's nothing wrong with utilising these resources - but what happened ended up bringing whales to the brink of extinction. Thanks to the 1986 ban (and to Star Trek IV), commercial whaling has been outlawed - excepting the Japanese and a few others - and whale numbers have begun to grow again. One notable example of this is the Blue Whale, which had dropped to maybe 650 individuals during the 1960s, but has increased to over 5000 today after a whaling ban in the 1960s (though still a fraction of the 275,000 Blue Whales estimated to have been alive before commercial whaling began). Population increases among other whale species has also been noted.

So with all this good news, why consider going back to whaling? The logic behind such a return is similar to that employed by advocates of drug legalisation - harm minimisation is more effective than criminalisation. In the case of whaling, the argument is that a heavily regulated return to commercial whaling is more likely to preserve whale numbers than the current ban. This is because the ban has created a demand for illegal whaling. Allowing a return to commercial whaling - which would be heavily limited by quotas - would reduce this demand and legitimise it. Moreover, quotas could increase as whale numbers increase, or decrease if numbers decrease, so long as the amount of whales killed by commercial whaling is much lower than the amount of whales that are born - preferably by a large percentage (eg 1 whale killed by commercial whaling for every 10 whales born). Linking quotas with whale population will ensure that commercial whaling companies have a financial interest in increasing the amount of whales in the ocean, thus giving them incentive to not hunt illegally (lest a complete ban be reinstated) and self-regulate.

The question is, though, have whale numbers increased to the point where even commercial whaling can be reinstated? While the 1986 ban has led to growing whale numbers, whale populations worldwide will still take centuries to recover from mankind's plunder. Depending upon the species of whale, a return to whaling - even heavily regulated by quotas - may still be unsustainable. While I certainly support a careful return to commercial whaling, my support is heavily qualified.

But all of this may be irrelevant anyway - experts are, after all, predicting an ocean die off once global warming goes too far. Maybe all I'm supporting is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Time will tell.

OSO's Debt Watch

GDP = $14.4538 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2009 Q4 final estimate)
Public Debt = $8.29003783104649 Trillion (2010-03-31)
Total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities = $3.7061 Trillion (2010-02-01)
Debt/GDP ratio = 57.36%
Foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio = 25.64%
Population = 309,212,311 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2010-03-01)
GDP per capita = $46,743.93
Public Debt / person = $26,810.18
Foreign Public Debt/ person = $11,985.62
GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person = $19,933.75
Tax Receipts = $2.044117 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01)
Tax Receipts as percentage of GDP = 14.14%
Debt/Receipt ratio² = 405.56%
Federal Government Outlays = $3.521637 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01)
Federal Government Outlays as percentage of GDP = 24.36%
For every $1.00 the US government gains, it spends $1.72
Fiscal Surplus/Deficit = -$1.47752 Trillion
Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP = -10.22%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross, Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2010-02-01) = $0.398852 Trillion
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue = 19.51%
Interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP = 2.76%

Notes:

• Debt/GDP ratio increases to 57.46%. It was 56.57% last week. Hmmm.
  
• Debt/Receipt Ratio reaches 405.56%. It was 400.00% last week. Double Hmmm.
• Population figures updated. GDP per capita has thus decreased. Triple Hmmm.
  
• Population has not increased as quickly as debt, therefore public debt/person has still increased. Americans now owe an extra $351.66 than they did a week ago. Hmmm⁴.
  
• Note the new "Interest paid on debt securities." and compare them to the 2008 figures. More gross interest was paid in 2008 than presently, both in $ paid and as percentage of GDP. Revenue has dropped however - though the 2008 figure of 16.68% (interest paid as percentage of revenue) is not that much lower than the current level.
  

In October 2008, GDP was $14.2003 Trillion (Current Dollar, 2008 Q4 final estimate)
In October 2008, Public Debt was $6.18964742400511 Trillion (2008-10-20)
In October 2008, the total debt owed to foreign holders of treasury securities was $2.9797 Trillion
In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.59%
In October 2008, the foreign ownership of debt/GDP ratio was 20.98%
In October 2008, the Population (resident population + Armed Forces overseas) was 305,554,049 (2008-10-01)
In October 2008, GDP per capita was $46,473.94
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,257.13
In October 2008, Foreign Public Debt/ person was $9,751.79
In October 2008, GDP per capita minus Public Debt per person was $26,216.81
In October 2008, Tax Receipts were $2.578156 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Tax Receipts represented 18.16% of GDP
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt² ratio was 240.08%
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays were $2.747197 Trillion (Twelve month moving average¹, November 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement)
In October 2008, Federal Government outlays represented 19.35% of GDP
In October 2008, for every $1.00 the US government gained, it spent $1.07.
In October 2008, the Fiscal Surplus/Deficit was −$0.169041 Trillion
In October 2008 the Surplus/Deficit as percentage of GDP was -1.19%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt Securities (Twelve month moving average, Monthly Treasury Statements) was $0.429994 Trillion
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of revenue was 16.68%
In October 2008, interest paid on Treasury Debt as percentage of GDP was 3.03%

The historical tables of the FY2010 budget (page 24-25) show that:

Highest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 20.9% in 1944 and 2000.
Lowest tax receipts as percentage of GDP: 2.8% in 1932.
The last time tax receipts were lower than they are now: 13.3% in 1943.
Highest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 43.6% in 1943 and 1944.
Lowest Federal Government outlays as percentage of GDP: 3.4% in 1930.
The last time Federal Government outlays were higher than they are now: 24.8% in 1946.
Fiscal Deficit - Worst: -30.3% in 1943
Fiscal Surplus - Best: 4.6% in 1948


¹ Measures total tax receipts/outlays over the previous 12 months from the last month measured. eg April 2009 to March 2010.
² The Debt/Receipt ratio measures government revenue (twelve month moving average) as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

---