Why so much noise about USA's credit rating being lowered?
Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony. "Pension- and many ""low-risk"" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds.  While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds.  It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating.  However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts." Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold. The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings. "Because the USA is the world's biggest economy - everybody in the world works with the USA (even if the american companies are not direct suppliers, they are surely somewhere in the supply chain). If USA credit rating is lower, that means american companies will find it harder to get loans to finance their business (i.e. the price of capital will be higher), and this will consequently lead to higher prices for partners of american companies, etc. This will certainly lead to slowdown of global economy. Plus, the lower credit rating also means that the USA govt. is less likely to pay off the debts (Chinese already stated they will diversify their bonds portfolio -i.e. they will start selling out american govt. bonds). This will lead to cuts in public sector in USA, less spending by the consumers, also probably less import from abroad and less travel which will affect - you get it - the ""RoW"". It's not by chance we have a saying in Europe, when USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a flu!"
"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers).  Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and   dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already   has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock   dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term   capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the ""mega-rich"" are hedge fund   managers ""who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to   classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain   15 percent tax rate."" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned   by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a   high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit)   would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly   well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than   $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but   remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest   people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent   would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the   first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45   percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall   tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income   would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll   taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent   in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated,   given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make   between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal   taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis   from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of   Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower   capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar." Considering I'm putting 30% down and having my father cosign is there   any chance I would be turned down for a loan on a $100k car? According to BankRate, the average credit score needed to buy a new car is 714, but they also show average interest rates at 6.39% for new-car loans to people with credit scores in the 601-660 range. High income certainly helps offset credit score to some extent.  Not every bank/dealership does things the same way. Being self-employed you'd most likely be required to show 2 years of tax returns, and they'd use those as a basis for your income rather than whatever you have made recently. If using a co-signer, their income matters. Another key factor is debt to income ratio, if too much of someone's income is already spoken for by other debts a lender will shy away. So, yes, there's a chance, given all the information we don't know and the variability with lender policies, that you could be turned down for a car loan. How should I go about this? If you're set on pursuing the car loan, just go talk to some lenders. You'll want to shop around for a good rate anyway, so no need to speculate just go find out. Include the dealership as a potential financing option, they can have great rates. Personally, I'd get a much cheaper car. Your insurance premium on a 100k car will be quite high due to your age. You might be rightly confident in your earning potential, but nothing is guaranteed, situations can change wildly in short order. A new car is not a good investment or a value-retaining asset, so why bother going into debt for one if you don't have to? If you buy something in cash now, you could upgrade in a few years without financing if your earning prediction holds and would save quite a bit in car insurance and interest over the years between. "Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes.  First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well  as  the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership.  In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a  few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P.  There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal.  This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor  etc.  Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to  negotiations.  Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called ""Dealer Cash"" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations.  Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car.  They are however extremely important to  the dealer and this is  why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something.  IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to  make sure you fill it out correctly.  This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked.  According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00.  No where near 20%.  Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00.  One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve.  This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy.  This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds.  Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases.  The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months).  Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit.  Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual.  Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values.  A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%.  Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual.  Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense.  What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment.  Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400.  So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the ""Capitalized Cost"" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment.  That is the depreciation.  Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount.  So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment.  For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish.  This is not completely accurate but you can use it to  make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and  say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the  heck do  they make money at that, well its simple.  First in 2008 the Fed made all the ""Captive"" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before.  So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money.  In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and  securitize loans even for super prime credit.  Those days are essentially over.  Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does.  Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them.  So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate.  This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so.  When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash.  First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract.  Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle?  If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work.  Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break.  Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly.  So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid,  using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies?  Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the  new cars and the new car financing.  While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate.  The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit.  They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range.  Well that is a hell of a lot of profit.  'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them.  This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them.  Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread.  You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so  you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership.  When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up.  Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the  service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far." Of course your situation is very hurtful at a personal level, and I sympathize. I just don't get your point about being driven further into debt? It would seem that with a lower credit score you are prevented from taking on more debt. That can absolutely be hurtful especially to someone who runs a business that relies on short term credit. As for why they do this, they do it to reduce their risk - they don't want to lend more money, they are afraid that you will lose your job and default. Of course it is not as personal as I am writing it, not for you (they don't target you personally - they target your credit profile) and not for them (it is a matter of how the market views the debt and how much they can trade on such debt, not what they want to do personally). As for the TARP bailouts not releasing enough credit - this is reality. Goverment always thinks it can influence the situation more than it actually can. In order to unfreeze credit there needs to be a growing economy that makes the risk look acceptable. No amount of Goverment nudging will really change that more than marginally. By the way, legislation like this (forcing credit card companies to not raise their rates) can lead to credit restrictions. By artifically forcing the rates down the risk has to be ballanced somewhere - so it will be ballanced by lowering credit lines or by other means. Like any price control, if you restrict the price, it causes shortages. Intrest rates are the price of credit. That's what happens when you artificially juice equity markets and pretend it's good for everyone. And create credit bubbles that reward owners and gut renters.   How is it even a surprise that the fortunes of rich and poor would sharply diverge? "You may be missing how countries like Canada may have oil be more of the GDP than countries like the US. In Canada, the lower oil prices may mean more of an economic slowdown with oil companies laying off staff, canceling projects and some companies probably going under as some provinces like Alberta are highly dependent on oil prices to drive most of the economy. In contrast, the US isn't quite as rich in Energy sources and thus may not have the same issues would be my guess. Context matters here. If the rate change helps everybody, doesn't that include the oil producing companies? I'd like to think so using basic logic. What if the main reason for lowering rates was the economic fallout of the decrease in oil prices? Consider that the there would be the question of, ""Why do this now?"" that has to be answered and the only main change is lower oil prices on a macroeconomic level." And I was being facetious, apologies.   I think your assertion that the  &gt; entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent  is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors.  I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic.   To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference.   CDOs are a great example of what to avoid. "This is known as an inverted yield curve. It is rare, and can be caused by a few things, as discussed at the link. It can be because the view is that the economy will slow and therefore interest rates will go down. It is not caused by ""secret"" preparation. It could also be that there is generally in the world a move towards safer investments, making their interest rates cheaper. If I had to guess (and this guess is worth what you paid for it) it is because Australia's interest rate is significantly greater than other parts of the world, long term lower risk investment is being attracted there, as it gets a better return than elsewhere. This is pushing rates lower on long term bonds. So I would not take it as an indication of a soon-to-be economic downturn simply because in this global economy Australia is different in ways that influence investment and move interest rates."