This Kuwaiti prince is not very informed. To be honest he does not need to.
US government does not take loans, so it owes nothing to any foreign government. Most likely, the prince, and bunch of other more or less disinformed, heard something about US treasury notes. It is kind of bonds that everyone, incluiding princes and paupers, can buy on open market. The buyers have full right to claim that USA owes them something, but the only real thing they can do, if for some some reason they don't like 'the borrower' is to go and try sell their bonds on the same open market.
Speaking about capital inflows I meant something different. For example, when Chinese worker makes $5/day and produce $100/day in goods where the difference goes? Sizable part of it goes to USA directly, because US-based company partially owns that Chinese shop, and another sizable part goes to the same place indirectly, because Chinese princes (eh.. sorry, comrades) will steal cash and move it to USA.

>Actually, it is the loans this government takes each month from those two countries in order to float another month here that concern me. In an interview a few months ago with a Kuwaiti prince, he stated that each month the U.S. borrows money from Kuwait to stay afloat. We owe Kuwait hundreds of trillians. He stated than in less than a year, the U.S. would owe Kuwait so much that it could never pay it back. The same is now true with China. What are the odds that those two countries would excuse the debt as the U.S. has done for 3rd world countries? Should they be expected to? What benefit does each country gain by loaning that much money?
>
>
>>In some sense it really comes from there. USA largesse, including ability to maintain rich (by world standards) paupers comes from capital inflows largely originated in Chinese sweatshops and Kuwaiti oil wells.
>>
>>>You meant that it will come out of the pockets of the Kuwaitis and the Chinese, right? :o)
>>>
>>>>>It depends what state you're in and what type of loan you have.
>>>>>
>>>>>In California (area with one of the biggest problems) if it is a first mortgage it is considered a non-recourse loan and they can't pursue the difference. But if it was a second mortgage or refinanced they can. Even our Gov't is helping these people out by not counting the releived debt taxable (2 or 3 year window on this, normally it would be)
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course those moron bankers deserve all they get
>>>>
>>>>Problem is, one way or another the people who still pay the bills (who weren't trying to make fast money from the real estate pyramid scheme) get shafted in the fallout.
>>>>
>>>>Either it will come out of our pockets from a government bailout (likely) or from increased fees and interest rates by the banks or both (most likely).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting article here
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7529277.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't realise that in the US you could walk away from a debt like that and not be pursued. So people are walking away from paying for their house because it doesn't make business sense any more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the UK people who hand back their keys because they can't afford their house anymore are routinely pursued if the sale of the house by the bank fail to raise the full amount of an outstanding loan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nick