$19 TRILLION in Debt - US Debt Clock

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Our children will inherit that debt and then some if this isn't dealt with promptly.

And who will they owe this debt to?

Government has no money, ultimately anything it does or promises to do can only be funded by taxing citizens.

Really? Who issues the money?

Why not just cut checks for everybody?

When you can answer that question, you will see what I mean.

Interesting I wasn't really sure what the phrase cut cheques meant and had to check.(no pun intended) Assume its an Americanism (certainly isn't common phrase here) - sorry back on topic.
The fact that there are potential consequences doesn't mean the government cant do it. Taxes are essential but not to raise revenue in the way most people assume.

I don't adhere to the beliefs of Chartalists.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Our children will inherit that debt and then some if this isn't dealt with promptly.

And who will they owe this debt to?

Government has no money, ultimately anything it does or promises to do can only be funded by taxing citizens.

Really? Who issues the money?

Why not just cut checks for everybody?

When you can answer that question, you will see what I mean.

Interesting I wasn't really sure what the phrase cut cheques meant and had to check.(no pun intended) Assume its an Americanism (certainly isn't common phrase here) - sorry back on topic.
The fact that there are potential consequences doesn't mean the government cant do it. Taxes are essential but not to raise revenue in the way most people assume.

I don't adhere to the beliefs of Chartalists.

It's not a belief its a statement of fact. A state with its own currency does not tax in order to raise revenues. You can debate over the policy implications or if it even makes any difference but it remains true.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It's an entertaining debate to have and, at times, policies here in the US have utilized some of its ideas. Mainly the attempt to repair all of the damage caused by the out of control inflation after WWII by having a 90% tax rate. That policy could never have been enacted if the bulk of the cash in the economy wasn't make believe.

There are other examples and many analysts do adhere to it as justification for a variety of policy proposals. And you're right, it is an artifact of fiat currency.

The important thing that I try to convey to people who are less educated on different economic schools (not you) is that money is a medium of exchange that allows efficient indirect interpersonal trade. It can only represent as much productivity as actually exists. It can't materialize nonexistent goods or services.

a reply to: greencmp
Exactly. Too many people obsesses over monetary value when trying to understand economics and ignore real productivity.
Money is basically a tool that allows modern developed economies to function effectively.
We both agree modern money is, to borrow your phrase, make believe. We just disagree about if this is a good or a bad thing.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: FamCore

Obama inherited most of that debt. Not his fault.

We are 8 years into a failed administration, and people are still blaming bush. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you are spewing.

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: FamCore

Obama inherited most of that debt. Not his fault.

We are 8 years into a failed administration, and people are still blaming bush. You should be ashamed of the ignorance you are spewing.

Not to mention that the democrats had super-majority during the last two years of the Bush administration. They had veto proof power to pass any legislation they wanted, and the economy still tanked. Bush's hands were tied, but the democrats could have done anything they wanted - and they did nothing.

This economy is going to get very ugly very soon. There isnt even a real safe haven to hide in. I feel sorry for a lot of people who bought gold and silver thinking they were safe. By far the majority of people who did that do not have the metal itself, only the paper claim to it. The problem is there is much more paper title to gold and silver than there is gold and silver. The majority of these people are going to find out the hard way they bought air at the price of precious metals.

a reply to: FamCore

$19 TRILLION in Debt - US Debt Clock - Who to?

Does the media in the US ever ask this question??

If not why not?

a reply to: Azureblue

Because they don't know either and they blatantly accepted the fact that they don't know so they simply ignore it.

a reply to: FamCore

Really the debt itself is not the problem. The problem is the deficit which is the amount the debt increased each year or the gap between the government’s income and its expenditure.

Though to be fair that is a dismal figure for the USA too....

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: FamCore

$19 TRILLION in Debt - US Debt Clock - Who to?

Does the media in the US ever ask this question??

If not why not?

No, they know all right, they just refuse to do their job and ask such questions because they know money is created and how money works is not for the masses to know in case they start waking up and start asking all sorts of awkward questions. Worst of all they may start asking for the money back.

Henry Ford had a reason for saying "its just as well that ordinary men and woman do not know how money works because if they did there would be riot before dawn."

When I;ve asked that question of others the reply is usually 'each other' but this is not correct because if all countries were in debt to each other, all they would need to do is agree to forgive each others debt and slate would be wiped clean.

Banks Lie by Chris Fields, a free 50 page ebook that explains all.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: FamCore

Obama inherited most of that debt. Not his fault.

It's almost $20 trillion now www.usdebtclock.org...

I'm 40 years old people have been complaining about the national debt since the 1980's. After 40 years of hearing people cry wolf about it I'm not to worried.

This is what you need to look at:

i.imgur.com...

Take note of where it is and come back a minute later.

It's decreasing. Our GDP to Debt ratio is declining.

That's a good thing.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
This is what you need to look at:

i.imgur.com...

Take note of where it is and come back a minute later.

It's decreasing. Our GDP to Debt ratio is declining.

That's a good thing.

A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt. 105,27 % is bad, that's why the number is red.

a reply to: Ove38

Why would 105% be bad? On its own debt to GDP is a meaningless measure.
Somalia has a lower debt to GDP ratio, does it have a better economy?

a reply to: Ove38

Please refer to my prior post.

Thanks.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Ove38

Why would 105% be bad? On its own debt to GDP is a meaningless measure.
Somalia has a lower debt to GDP ratio, does it have a better economy?

A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt. That's why 105,27 % is bad.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Ove38

Please refer to my prior post.

Thanks.

I did, a couple of days ago you posted a link saying the debt-to-GDP ratio is 105,27 % It's still 105,27 % today. It was 102,49 in 2012 when the debt was $15,5 trillion Now It's almost $20 trillion

www.usdebtclock.org...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Ove38

Why would 105% be bad? On its own debt to GDP is a meaningless measure.
Somalia has a lower debt to GDP ratio, does it have a better economy?

A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt. That's why 105,27 % is bad.

No it doesn't. For a country with its own currency a higher or lower Debt/GDP ratio is neither a good nor a bad thing.
A country paying back its nominal debt with zero % growth & high unemployment would be reducing the the debt/GDP ratio but it would not be in most peoples opinion doing well.
A nations debt is just the accumulation of the deficits it runs over time. Deficits are neither inherently good or bad. If a economy needs stimulated then running a deficit is entirely the correct thing to do.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Ove38

Why would 105% be bad? On its own debt to GDP is a meaningless measure.
Somalia has a lower debt to GDP ratio, does it have a better economy?

A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt. That's why 105,27 % is bad.

No it doesn't. For a country with its own currency a higher or lower Debt/GDP ratio is neither a good nor a bad thing.
A country paying back its nominal debt with zero % growth & high unemployment would be reducing the the debt/GDP ratio but it would not be in most peoples opinion doing well.
A nations debt is just the accumulation of the deficits it runs over time. Deficits are neither inherently good or bad. If a economy needs stimulated then running a deficit is entirely the correct thing to do.

So USA will become Greece at $24 trillion debt is wrong ?