Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
Well, the latest US budget included three-quarters of a trillion (NB trillion, not billion) dollars on defence. The Daily Reckoning (a commentary on the financial world) suggests that the latest Bush budget could most accurately be described as "...as [allocating] hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have to buy weapons we don’t need to fight enemies that don’t exist..." I'd go along with that. Richard English | |||
|
Member |
I'm not sure what this last has to do with the question raised. And it seems to take us from a word discussion towards into a potentially-divisive political spat. The budget was released less than 48 hours ago. If we must discuss it, let's wait until the commentators have had time for more than a shoot-from-the-hip analysis. (By the way, the official figure is $481.4 billion, not three-quarters of a trillion, though it's being disputed.) | |||
|
Member |
Just to be clear Richard, you are using a trillion to mean 10^12, which is one million * one million? I've heard that in Britain, a billion is 10^12, what we in America refer to as a trillion. | |||
|
Member |
Asa, when I read your post, I played a game with myself, called Guess the Response: Who will post the first response and what will it say...and I won! When I think of the economy I think of our national economy. I also realize that there are a lot of ways of looking at it and many different perspectives. I don't tend to think of economy in the individual sense, though. | |||
|
Member |
I am not sure. The quote was the Daily Reckoning's, not mine. They don't say which meaning they are using for billion or trillion. I will ask them. Richard English | |||
|