全 180 件のコメント

[–]BeChili 117ポイント118ポイント  (13子コメント)

This would happen to every household if you didn't have to pay back the credit card.

[–]RPDBF1 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

don't forget if you run out of cash to make the minimum payment you're options are then:

  • Open another credit card to pay off the current credit card
  • Steal money from your neighboors
  • Print the money.

[–]Toddler_Fight_Club 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

I heard the neighbors were mean though so it's okay to kill them and take their stuff.

[–]123xyz123xyz 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, they've been fucking with us for a long time, and they believe in some heinous shit. It's time those bitches got a taste of our hellfire.

[–]Dysentery_Larry 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fed wouldn't want to print more money - they'd rather have the government borrow to pay off the priorities, i.e. interest on the debt. U.S. Treasury has never missed an interest payment, ever.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 47ポイント48ポイント  (6子コメント)

It would happen in every household if you had credit cards with a borderline-zero interest rate.

If someone is willing to loan you money at 1% when inflation is pushing 2%, you borrow every dollar that you can get your hands on.

[–]BeChili 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

Plus the borrower (i.e. individual members of Congress) have no obligation to personally pay this back so if they can keep getting elected based on free money promises then that's their priority.

The current system is mathematically designed to fail and that's why gold and silver were supposed to be the currency of the nation since it cannot be so easily devalued*.

*It can be devalued - it's just a lot harder.

[–]Toastburger 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Talking about gold and silver based money in today's world is a joke, and a bad one at that. The gold standard is widely held by economists to be a terrible idea and really, really doesn't prevent devaluation or reduce inflation--the US ran a whopping 18% inflation in 1918 under the gold standard.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Plus the borrower (i.e. individual members of Congress) have no obligation to personally pay this back so if they can keep getting elected based on free money promises then that's their priority.

Even if you take a deeply cynical view of Congress and assume it's just a bunch of corporate cronies intent on mollifying the electorate, nothing about this gets us to "free money".

The nation is full of debtors and creditors. Inflating currency benefits those with the most debt (college students, new home buyers, and Trumps) while harming people with the most liquidity (actual billionaires, retirees, and lottery winners).

So Congressmen still have to balance the money they produce against the interests of the parties they are beholden to, or they risk losing elections. It's not enough to just produce money and hand it out to everybody equally.

The current system is mathematically designed to fail

An economic system doesn't fail simply because currency changes value relative to production. Cash is still just a medium of exchange. Economies risk failure when there is a stark imbalance between productivity and consumption. So long as Congressmen continue to create incentives for surplus production, the people stay happy and the business owners continue to feel rich. If production crashes (as during the 70s, in the wake of the OPEC embargo) or demand spikes (as in our appetite for broadband rapidly eclipsing availability) you get the kind of economic instability that rocks the political world and forces a change in policy.

[–]ChowdahAccountantLibahtarian 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree with what you are saying but an increasing debt burden relative to GDP is unsustainable at some point because the economy at some point will not be productive enough to meet interest and principal payments. Inflation alone is not a large enough factor to rationalize increasing debts to near unlimited levels.

Maybe this is what you're hinting at when stating "stark imbalance between productivity and consumption" so if that's the case then just tell me to be quiet.

[–]TheGuildedCunt 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Debt is meaningless when it's denominated in a currency you control. It's always really annoying when someone puts up a "simplified" post as if US national debt is a household budget. The difference is the household isn't the bank issuing (and holding) the debt as well as the issuer of the currency the debt is held in. These comparisons make zero sense.

[–]WhiteyDude 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

And... you planned to never die or retire, and you'll never be out of work.

[–]justscottsid 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And if they didn't cut you off

[–]Ksight3 138ポイント139ポイント  (58子コメント)

This used to get posted all the time and the two (household debt and government debt) are not comparable. To suggest they are is incredibly ignorant.

[–]His_Dudeness211ancap 24ポイント25ポイント  (55子コメント)

ELI5

[–]mortemdeus 53ポイント54ポイント  (36子コメント)

People kinda failed this one...

You have a 30 year mortgage of $100,000 at 5% interest. If you make minimum payments for 30 years you will have paid just shy of $200,000 on the loan. The loan is paid off and you now own your house.

The government takes a $100,000 loan for a house. It has to pay it back in either 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. It doesn't make payments, it pays it all at once. So the government gets the loan at 5% just like you did (lets say at 30 years to make it "apples to apples"), however, it owes $432,194.238 now. It has to pay that $432K now but it did have the house at no real cost to it for 30 years.

How is that better? A couple of ways.

1) If the loan rate is lower than the rate of inflation (which it often is), the $432k the government pays is worth less than the $100k it borrowed. Since it doesn't have to make monthly payments on the loan, the government both made money AND got a free house.

2) The government can take the $432k it owes and borrow again to repay it. It can do this for as long as it needs to. This means, essentially, that the government can roll a loan back forever. The $100k it borrowed might turn into $1 billion over time but that is hundreds of years down the road. In the mean time, the lenders get paid and the government can continue to borrow as if it had no debt.

This is one of many ways the government treats debt differently than a household.

[–]corthander 15ポイント16ポイント  (23子コメント)

You cracked the code: Free money.

I get what you're saying but it can't continue to work this way with ever-increasing debt and depending on inflation to cover our backs. Someday, at some point, people will look at our precarious tower of debt and decide to buy bonds elsewhere, except they can't find any safe place because everywhere they look, our tower looms over and when it falls, there will be no safe place left. So then what, build the tower higher or try to gradually make it less tall and precarious?

[–]polynomialpusher 10ポイント11ポイント  (17子コメント)

Why would it fall? I mean there are many ways it could fall but it's not like the government runs unchecked as much as everyone likes to pretend it does.

[–]Naieve 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

The Congressional Budge Office, last I checked, expected that some time around 2030 all we would be able to afford with our income would be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the interest on the debt.

By 2050. All we will be able to afford is interest on the debt.

At some point along that line, people are going to stop investing in T-Bonds that they know we can't pay back. When the first major move is made in that direction, others will follow.

The question isn't whether the US is going to lose world reserve currency status. The question is whether Congress is going to allow the Second Great Depression to happen because they can't balance a fucking check book.

[–]polynomialpusher 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

It won't go unchecked. Believe it or not these guys do tend to do what the voters want and when enough of them get to the point where it's uncomfortable or alter their circumstances for the worst they'll force them to turn it around.

I wouldn't expect any in here to have belief in that system working but to each their own.

[–]Naieve 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

By the time Congress decides to act it will be too late. Which is why I mention we are going to lose reserve currency status. Right now, that is the best case scenario I can see from my position.

Worst case. No politician wants to tell the public they are cutting benefits and rasing taxes, and simply keep passing the buck until everything explodes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the US Congress allow the worst case to take place.

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the United States Federal Government.

[–]polynomialpusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I figured.

[–]Naieve 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have some faith left obviously.

So I ask you.

Name the politician who will stand up in front of the US Public and tell us they are cutting benefits and drastically raising taxes.

[–]corthander -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The only saving grace about the mess we're in, is that we, as a country have become "too big to fail", so we will just pull a Donald Trump and say to our smaller debt holders "you want your money? sue me for it" and the resource disparity will force them to write it off. Meanwhile, our credit rating likely won't change because we've made such a mess of things that we're still better than the alternatives.

[–]Naieve 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

And then everyone dumps US Treasury Bonds. The government causes hyperinflation.

And we have a huge technologically advanced military and decide to use it.

[–]radleft 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And we have a huge technologically advanced military and decide to use it.

The decision's been made and is being acted upon, we're already using the military to prop up the petro-dollar.

[–]corthander 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Certainly plausible. I can't wrap my head around the people who say that here is nothing dangerous long-term about borrowing money in perpetuity. There is no perpetuity. There is a conclusion, and it may end up with us just "cancelling" our debt with force as you mention.

[–]thisisnewt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The US borrows in USD and controls the rate of inflation for USD.

You might see higher inflation rates, but we'll never get to the point where we are only paying interest on debt.

[–]corthander -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

But it does. Has it really been that long since 2008?? I mean, the U.S. government literally poured money into the largest banks so that the global economic system wouldn't collapse. It was on the brink of collapse because of unchecked debt speculation much like the schemes outlined here. Yes it's not apples to apples. Yet people think, less than a decade later, that excessive debt is just fine and it will never have consequences.

There is no such thing as free money.

Besides reaching a natural tipping point where the government needs to print so much money just to cover the debt that inflation takes off, and then other countries are not willing to accept tiny interest rates anymore, so we have to print more and more etc. There is also the scenario where other major countries could engage in currency wars. I am not an expert in this area but from what I understand, the U.S., in its current state is very vulnerable. Sure it would wreck the rest of the world but perhaps they'd take their chances to bring us down and see how it turns out.

[–]polynomialpusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's what I mean though, it doesn't run unchecked. There are people ready and willing to keep the pile upright and it really can go for a very long time. Most other countries are doing the same thing in case you didn't notice, so unless every single person in those governments and all those economists are somehow raising a world wide conspiracy against each other I won't lose sleep about it.

[–]corthander 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Let's just congratulate ourselves at being so clever that we've increased our porcelain delivery efficiency by stacking the boxes higher in our arms. Let's look around and see other countries doing the same and assume that well, if we all lose our porcelain, then at least we'll go down together. Right now we're about 20 boxes high and saying "there's no real reason to worry as long as we have good balance, and we have pretty good balance IMHO".

[–]polynomialpusher 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Most of the American debt is held by American's right? It won't be a problem.

[–]corthander 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The federal government doesn't need to eat or need a place to live. Americans do. It will be a problem.

[–]Trumpet22 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's when you scrap the towers, kill a few million people, and start over apparently.

[–]corthander 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The way people act, you'd think that this was their end-game. We're going to have problems with financial sustainability sooner than environmental sustainability.

[–]eitauisunity 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bingo. No one seems to appreciate this.

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

What will happen is what happens to all bubbles eventually, It will pop and whomever is left holding the bag will get burned. The question is: Are we in a bubble now, or are we still in the realm of value.

[–]corthander 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well the way some people talk, as long as the bubble isn't popped, it's not a bubble. Like saying "I haven't died yet, therefore my immortality experiment is going swimmingly!"

[–]Matador09 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is purely a function granted by having the leading reserve currency. Essentially, other countries foot the interest bill in inflation because it's less risky to hold treasuries than, for example, Greek federal bonds.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

What's the logical progression of this practice? Spoiler alert, it's not pretty. There is no free lunch and the laws of economics never cease to exist.

[–]Naieve 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

The logical progression is a run on the T-Bond market, the rich flee with their money. And we sit here with the largest most technologically advanced military on earth.

I'll let you guess what happens then.

[–]intentsman 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The rich flee with their money

Where to?

[–]caulfield45 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nowhere, because this is paranoid bullshit.

Oh god, when i sober up and see this post tomorrow I'm not gonna like the downvotes...

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like sound economic policy to me.

[–]mortemdeus 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Idealist view: As the government doesn't always (just often) borrow 100% of what it needs to repay the loan, the loan constantly gets closer to $0. In the above case, the government owes $432k but it budgets $200k to pay it down. It then owes $232k which is roughly half the amount owed originally. The next tick makes it cheaper again. Even though the number grows the value lowers until it becomes easy to pay off. In 300 years it will have cost the government $1 billion but the initial $100,000 would be worth $100 billion then.

Pessimists view: If a case of deflation kicks in, the government owes much more than it did before. This destorys the economy.

The anarchists view: If that happens we win! Glorious revolution!

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The government has shown no intention of even attempting to pay down some of the debt. We were at a seemingly national crisis when some threatened to slow the speed at which we were increasing our spending.

Can you imagine if the fed lets rates rise? The market will crash faster than Dale Earnhardt.

I think hyperinflation is far more likely than deflation. The EU and Japan are further down this road than we are thankfully and they'll be looking to us for a bailout which means a massive spike in the money supply.

You can't outrun illogical economic practices. Economies were never meant to be centrally planned.

[–]eletherosGun toting social, sexual, and political deviant -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you imagine if the fed lets rates rise? The market will crash faster than Dale Earnhardt.

You should count on the fed rate raising in December.

[–]CharlestonChewbacca 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, except someone owns the debt. The debt can't continue to build without a totalitarian government forcing loans at nonconsensualy low interest rates.

[–]LOST_TALE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

can continue to borrow as if it had no debt.

echo echo echo! Call greece?

[–]ApprovalNet 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

The federal government prints money, you and I do not.

[–]HighOnLife 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just to clarify further, governments only print through deficit spending.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

electronically printed, not literally.

A better term would be they are able to spend invisible money that doesn't exist.

[–]caulfield45 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's Quantitative Easing, then

[–]Ksight3 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Erm this is too big for me to surmise in a single paragraph.

For one, the government issues bonds as debt which serves as a very important medium for investments globally. A household can't do that nor would it serve such a purpose if it could/did. So having debt for a government is more or less necessary but that is not the case for a household. Having a balanced budget is great in both scenarios of course, but an increasing debt for a government isn't necessarily a cause for concern (unless the government was also becoming less able to repay those debts). Forthermore having 0 debt as a government would almost certainly be disastrous whereas having 0 debt as a household would generally be very good. The sources and uses of revenue for a government / household are also vastly different. An outstanding credit card debt balloons very quickly (unsecured loan with high interest) whereas government debt doesn't (generally guaranteed with low interest). Etc.

[–]natek53 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not disagreeing, just wondering. How is 0 government debt disastrous?

[–]Ksight3 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

If a government has no debt, either that particular government has not issued any bonds (highly unlikely but technically not impossible) or the government is issuing bonds but no one is buying them. Bond prices/rates are more or less inversely related to risk - US treasury bonds are the safest investment in the world and therefore offer low returns. Bonds from say emerging countries have higher returns to compensate for the higher risk of default. If no one is buying them, the most likely reason is because that government is failing / defaulting aka disastrous.

[–]corthander 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

So, 0 debt isn't disastrous, it could just potentially indicate problems. 0 debt could also be completely fine if the government has chosen not to issue bonds.

[–]TW3_ModSquad 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, but if the government of a huge rich nation like the US is not issuing bonds - an important source of cash flow - then they are probably not spending much at the moment. The US government is a huge source of demand and economic activity and employment. The idea of shutting down this system in the name of balancing books is ass-backwards and would crash the economy.

[–]Naieve -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one is disagreeing with this. I agree to a certain level this is correct.

The problem is the current level of debt. Our income. And our spending.

There is literally only one outcome to the trajectory we are on. And it isn't a healthy economy.

[–]throwawayainteasy -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

A lot of things makes it a poor comparison, the simplest:

Government debt is owed mostly to itself.

Government debt is paid with money they print themselves.

There ramifications of not paying debts is very different between people and the government.

[–]MatasterMatt 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Government debt is owed mostly to itself.

No, government debt is almost always a combination of private and public debt, mostly through the selling of government securities. Sometimes debentures. This doesn't mean the government isn't liable to pay it back. The government doesn't owe this money to themselves, they owe money and interest to holders of everything from treasury bills to other government bonds.

Government debt is paid with money they print themselves.

The monetary supply does affect the debt, that's true. You can monetarize a debt, and all governments I'm aware of use inflation to their advantage. But fiat money, like all other goods and services, depends on supply and demand. Particularly of loanable funds. This doesn't mean the government is off the hook regarding paying back the debt.

There ramifications of not paying debts is very different between people and the government.

This is true, but there are plenty of examples globally of what can happen when governments simply default. It's not pretty.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bingo. You can never outrun the laws of economics no matter how huge your economy is. The larger it is, the bigger head start you get. But it always catches you.

[–]throwawayainteasy 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Someone asks for an ELI5 and you're trying to to correct for your preferred characterizations of the nature of the debts?

Yes in a basic sense federal debts are mostly owed to itself.

No one said or implied that it, or the use of fiat money, or the vastly different ramifications for people vs governments, means it doesn't ever have to pay them.

[–]DialMMM 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes in a basic sense federal debts are mostly owed to itself.

No in a basic sense. Look at the biggest piece that they put in the "owed to itself" category: Social Security ($2.6T). The underlying creditors are the people who are owed the benefits. Another $1.3T is owed to Federal and Military retirees and disabled persons; it just flows through the federal government. I'd have to pick apart the $2.1T "owed" to the Fed, but I suspect much of that is offset by obligations.

[–]escaday 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also countries are likely to have more time to pay back the debt. I.e. countries don't die

[–]sand_kat 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

countries don't die but governments sure do

[–]FlexGunshiprational anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Only because of fiat currencies. Friedman pointed this out in the 70s. The government can only get say with this because it can create new money without adding value to the economy.

This dilutes the money supply and makes every person slightly poorer as a result. It's actually sort of a tax that doesn't need to be voted on.

Debt is deferred via a mechanism that allows for taxation without representation. It's much worse than household debt since it's simply mortgaging the future productivity of unborn generations.

[–]Ayjayzvoluntaryist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are certainly comparable. There are differences, but there are also many similarities.

[–]Battleloser 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

If I play civ and fuck up the economy that badly I usually just give up and restart.

[–]empeaseaes 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just start pointless wars until someone takes me out...

Oh, shit.

[–]LiquidDreamtime 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Serious question for the financially educated:

Since we are a debt based society, why is there so much fear around inflation? Inflation would make our debts small in comparison to our wages and relieve much of the stress that everyday Americans face.

[–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is nothing wrong with modest inflation. It doesn't really make your debt cheaper because the interest rates at a minimum offset inflation. Good inflation is when you get a raise of 3% and inflation only goes up 2%. Right now wage growth is stagnant because GDP is not really growing though.

[–]TheRobotSpy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It absolutely makes the right kind of debt cheaper. If I own a home with a fixed interest rate my mortgage payment stays the same regardless of inflation. Over the 30 years or my mortgage a 2% inflation will increase my nominal income by 81% while my mortgage payment doesn't change.

If you get a fixed mortgage in 2016 your mortgage payments will always be in 2016 dollars while your income will be in future inflated dollars.

[–]wise_man_wise_guy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Assuming wages inflate on some level you are correct. Paying off a debt tomorrow is better than paying off a debt today.

However, as we learned in 2008, a significant shock to the system puts the entire system as risk of crumbling when debt is too significant. Additionally, if interest rates are in excess of inflation, it means productivity growth has to exceed the difference in interest rate vs inflation (e.g. you borrow at 3%, inflation is 2%, so you need 1% of additional growth to make up the difference.) If productivity growth stagnates for a significant period of time you will wind up with a serious problem that can only be solved by inflation. This may not sound that bad, but it has the possibility of transferring a lot of wealth from savers to borrowers, which is generally seen as unjust.

[–]LNhart 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well it does also make wages and saving small, so there's also a sort of drawback.

But it's generally accepted by economists that inflation per se isn't terrible, as long as it's under control. Usually the goal is something like close to but less than 2%.

Now hyperinflation is terrible and has arguably caused world wars. Deflation is poison for the economy, too, because you don't spend if it will be cheaper soon, anyways.

[–]dissdigg 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ahhh, to be in 2011 again.

[–]cristi1990an 32ポイント33ポイント  (24子コメント)

Federal debt has literally nothing to do with your normal definition of debt.

[–]corthander 8ポイント9ポイント  (22子コメント)

Could you elaborate?

[–]Useful-ldiot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is assuming the only income is tax revenue (it's not). To put it very simply, federal debt is completely different than a credit card. You can take this point further.

Most of the US national debt is Treasury Bills. They are effectively bonds issued by the US government. You give the government $1000, and the government gives you an "IOU" that they will give you that amount back, with interest, at a later date. Think about that $25 bond your grandmother gave you 15 years ago that you caused for $35 last week. Usually they're short term, any time from 4 weeks up to a year. Interest rates are exceedingly low. you invest $1000 for a year, you might get $1005 back.

Those bonds can be traded on the open market. you can buy and sell them (where you are buying and selling the right to be paid money by the US government on a certain date in the future).

Virtually all of the "National Debt" is people who own these IOU's, and at some point in the future, the government will owe them some amount of money.

Of the $18 Trillion national debt, approximately 68% is domestic.

16% is held by the Social Security Administration. 13% is held by other US government entities 12% is held by the federal reserve bank.

So, 41% of the US national debt is held either by the US government itself or The Federal Reserve Bank, the De-facto central bank of the US. The remaining 25% in the "domestic" bin is owned by US citizens and US companies as investments.

34% of the national debt is "foreign" that is Treasury Bills that are held by someone outside of the United States.

China holds 7.7%% of the total - about 1.3-1.4 Trillion US dollars based on raw percentage calculation. Japan holds 7% of the total. Other countries fill out the remaining 19%.

These countries choose to hold these Treasury Bills because it is a ready reserve of US dollars. Those T-Bills are liquid and can be sold any time those countries need US currency. this is particularly important because most of the oil in the global marketplace is priced in US dollars, one of the reasons their value is so resillent.

Hypothetically, yes, China could decide one day that they no longer wish to hold any US dollars and sell them all. It's highly likely that dumping $1.4 trillion US dollars onto the market overnight would cause a disruption in the marketplace. It would cause the value of US dollars to fall a bit, but how much?

Well, look at this for comparison. Every single day$14 Trillion US Dollars flows through this country's economy. changing hands as investments and physical goods are bought and sold, debts are issued and repaid, people are paid, etc. $1.4 trillion is not, compared to the economy, a huge number. The price of T-Bills might fall, but there would be buyers for $1.4 trillion in US currency. The US wouldn't suddenly jump into hyperinflation because no one would want dollars.

Moreover, if china dumps their currency in such a way as it does hurt the value, they hit themselves in the pocketbook, taking a loss on money they invested.

[–]liberationation 6ポイント7ポイント  (14子コメント)

Household debt isn't owned for the most part by its residents.

[–]corthander 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

Does that nuance mean that it's ok to drive up national debt to untenable heights? I mean, if we want to be able to sell bonds as a country, we have to have good credit. If we want to have good credit, we need to pay the interest on those bonds. How high does the "debt service" line item on the federal budget need to be before it's too much?

[–]lemonpjb 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally, once totally debt = 105-120% of GDP

[–]liberationation 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I didn't say that, I'm just saying you can't really compare household debt to national debt, they are two different things.

[–]corthander 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well, playing off my analogy above, it's like comparing a rattlesnake with a python. They are both snakes, and they are both deadly if proper precautions aren't taken. I think the original image is like "beware of snakes because you could die". Maybe that's just me though.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

And Keynesians are handling the snakes saying they are totally harmless.

[–]pinkycatcher 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

No, it's like comparing a rattlesnake with a piece of cheese.

They're totally different things with different mechanisms for working.

[–]corthander -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Use whatever analogy you're comfortable with. Debt doesn't just not become debt when there's a government holding it. Sure, the rules and strategies are different, but in the end someone still holds the debt. There is no such thing as free money.

[–]pinkycatcher 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

When you hold debt as less than inflation then it's not really debt, you're literally earning money by borrowing.

[–]corthander 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure. And I can increase my porcelain delivery efficiency by stacking the boxes ever higher in my arms. The deeper you go, the greater the consequences.

What happens when the Fed can't control inflation? We've got like 20 boxes stacked up now and we think we're so smart.

Servicing the debt on $20 Trillion is not a trivial thing and if the wind shifts or someone deliberately engages in currency wars, the tower will come tumbling down. But hey let's borrow more because under the right conditions, we make money by borrowing.

[–]Another_Random_User 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So this is why the democrats push so hard for minimum wage increases? They're actively trying to drive up inflation, so they have more money to spend?

[–]iTotzke 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you're literally earning money by borrowing

Earning if you are investing in a liquid or otherwise recoverable assets. If the government gets a loan with an interest rate lower than inflation and proceeds to light it on fire, I would argue that they are not earning money.

[–]iamelphaba 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it depends on the point of the comparison. IMO, the comparison is being used to just help people see how tiny the budget cuts are and putting it in smaller numbers more like people see when they budget their household DOES make that easier to see. Of course household debt is different than national debt, but I don't think the comparison was really trying to say that they could be handled the same way.

[–]caulfield45 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

We set our own interest rates through the Fed, so we can pretty much keep taking debt as long as GDP is positive.

[–]corthander 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

we can try to set interest rates. Not guaranteed. It's just so asinine to think we have total control over our economy and that it will never come back to bite us. What's next, negative interest rates like Japan?

[–]cristi1990an 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Federal "debt" is more like an investment. Institutions or countries invest money into the US Federal Bank and they expect a revenue in return. The Federal Bank loans this money with an interest to other banks. This interest pays back the original investor's revenue. The US economy is the safest investment in the world, so the Federal Bank can negotiate very good deals and terms. This "debt" is a huge safety net in case of an economic crisis and it helps the economy a lot by allowing local banks to lower their interests for US businesses and citizens, therefore fueling economic growth.

[–]corthander 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's only that safe because we have always paid our debts in the past. If we want to maintain the status of "safest investment" we need to ensure that we will always be able to pay our debts. We often take it for granted that the Dollar is used, but if we are foolish, perhaps the Yuan will take its place.

[–]CharlestonChewbacca 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, an investment. Like a mortgage. Only I keep taking out mortgages without paying any off.

[–]caulfield45 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Imagine the richest and most debt-serviceable household you can.

Now imagine it's a country.

Now imagine that that country's debt is mostly owed to itself as a way to balance some expenses going back across 2 World Wars and shit.

That's the US and its debt. The metaphor breaks down immediately.

[–]corthander 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The photo above may not have much to do with our current predicament, but it doesn't make it any less of a predicament brought on by excessive debt that puts the global economy at risk.

[–]deelowe -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One simple explanation is that countries who owe each other debt don't go to war with each other.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're missing the point.

Federal debt is exactly the same as personal debt. It's just that the federal government has a lot of ways to pay it back.

[–]corthander 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

It sounds like many people are saying the equivalent of "Well, giant pythons aren't dangerous to humans because they're not poisonous". We get that government debt works differently than consumer debt, but you can't just make that a blanket statement as to why it's OK to ruin the credit of the country and drive up the debt so much that a significant amount of the budget will need to be allocated to just paying interest on the debt.

[–]frog_licker 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except the credit isn't being ruined. US debt is still considered to be the 'risk free' asset by the market meaning the US government is the single most credit worthy entity on the planet. That's the key. You've been whipped into a frenzy by alarmists who don't tell you this and want you to be afraid.

[–]corthander 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king right? I am alarmed because we can't just borrow more and more in the hopes that we can always tame inflation. It's not risk free, it's just the least risky on the planet because we have made this monolith of risk that you can't escape. So in this context "risk free" can just be translated as "well if this fails, EVERYTHING fails" which is becoming less and less of a hypothetical.

[–]Naieve 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Last I checked, the CBO projected that some time around 2050, all our national income will pay for is interest on the debt.

Long before then something will happen. Either we will fix the problem, painfully, or we will experience a second great depression.

Either way. The USA is going to lose world reserve currency status.

[–]GregariousWolf 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Updated for 2016:

Annual family income: $33,400

Money the family spent: $39,500

New debt on the credit card: $6,100

Outstanding balance on credit card: $195,000

[–]goodtimesKC 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Total wealth of household: $10,000,000

[–]MY_ONION_ACCOUNT -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

That figure doesn't sound right: @33k/year it'd take 300 years to build up that value - if one was assuming 33k net per year. I'm pretty sure that our gross hasn't dropped that far, and I'm pretty sure our net hasn't been that high for that long.

Unless you're talking about the total wealth of the USA, in which case you're comparing apples to oranges.

[–]goodtimesKC 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If I make 30k a year and want a baller BMW, a bank would be stupid to make that loan.

If I make 30k a year and want a baller BMW and I own a 10k acre farm in Texas that's a pretty secure loan.

How do you figure comparing the debts taken out against total asset holdings is like comparing apples to oranges? It's fundamental to the analysis of whether a loan is likely to be repaid.

In the case of the US, we are rich and can absolutely afford to pay it back.

It's like when you are a billionaire. Ya.. you could pay cash for everything but why bother. The bank will give you a signature loan at prime rate because all the stuff you already own is worth way more. Who cares if you don't have cash flow.

[–]wise_man_wise_guy 12ポイント13ポイント  (11子コメント)

I know libertarians aren't a fan of Keynesian economics, but hopefully you understand that this analogy is tenuous at best.

If you're gonna play with it, first, the "household" is King Midas who can create as much new gold as he wants and not only that, gold is the universal currency so he can pay off any existing debts at any time he wants. However, he is also aware that if he floods the market with too much gold at once the value of each subsequent piece of gold he makes goes down, so he has to be careful about making too much gold and borrowing too much. That being said, he is motivated to go into debt when necessary as much as risk will allow because he has no fear of paying it off AND he gets to borrow at a value before his future gold inflates it away. So he assumes almost 0 current risk with debt.

I know we want to strive for a more balanced economic system that protects savers better, but using this analogy serves to reinforce a concept that people already misunderstand and makes it worse because the stupids recite this kind of analogy as if they know something.

[–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

/u/corthander had a pretty good response to most of the criticisms being thrown at this analogy which is, admittedly, not perfect.

If our debt were stable or there were even solutions being drawn up by our politicians to stabilize them, it would be less worrisome. The problem is the debt is at 100% of GDP, it has doubled the last ten years, Keynesian economics has not worked as the stimulus packages did not really jump start the economy as promised (see lack of GDP growth), and no one wants to reform entitlements even the slightest (which are far and away the largest government expense).

If we do nothing we will eventually get to the point where all our tax revenues are just going to paying the interest of our debt. As you say we can just print unlimited money, but we have a floating currency so it would immediately be devalued so much that our purchasing power becomes a shadow of it's former self. So the risk is really not defaulting as much as it is just ruining our economy.

[–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

and a ruined economy defaults anyway.

[–]wise_man_wise_guy -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

As it stands right now the U.S. currency operates under a system of planned inflation. You can dislike the merits of that of course, but as time passes this debt does down in liability on account of the new money you print. So in real terms, you're borrowing 100 and paying back 95 even after interest (or however the numbers workout). This system exposes you to certain things a non-inflationary currency doesn't, but u/corthander's response is a little too "the sky is falling." The U.S. still is the world reserve currency, and as of today the credit of the country is nowhere close to being ruined. Are there dangers? Sure. But as it stands today it's really just a bunch of squawkers seeing a future where this all falls apart. In the short run, savers are the only ones getting screwed, and slowly at that.

[–]corthander 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm pasting a tidbit I used above: It's only that safe because we have always paid our debts in the past. If we want to maintain the status of "safest investment" we need to ensure that we will always be able to pay our debts. We often take it for granted that the Dollar is used, but if we are foolish, perhaps the Yuan will take its place.

It's such a foolish game to play. In 2007 you would have also told me how real estate never loses its value because you can't make more of it.

How can you say that a system that screws the savers is healthy? How much more healthy would our economy be without pay-day loans and huge consumer debt sucking up the margins that could be spent on goods and services instead? You're going to tell me that a pay-day loan is a service, but what value does it add to the health of the economy?

[–]wise_man_wise_guy 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

On some level the concept of "stored value" is a misnomer. The idea being that you can put in effort today and trade that effort for equal effort in the future. It makes the assumption that your effort today is just as valuable as someone's effort tomorrow without necessarily being true, as if you are creating potential energy waiting to become kinetic energy. Corn wastes, iron rusts, and water evaporates. That is to say, an inflationary environment isn't inherently wrong even though it feels wrong. It sure feels wrong when we plan it into the process because it allows certain interests to take undue advantage.

Pay-day loans serve a purpose. A not insignificant amount of consumers abuse the problem and fall behind, but a majority use them for their intended purpose. But focusing on them is like treating a symptom. Like a cough drop for when you have a cold.

Tackling the issues with Keynesian economics is like trying to dumb down calculus. On some level you can do it, but short of a decent amount of education it is hard to do. In the interim you risk misinforming people, such as with the budget example above. It doesn't highlight the problem, but makes a person think they understand it.

[–]corthander 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I take your point but you also run the risk of this elitism causing something to the effect of "well it's too complicated for the layman to understand so we'll just keep doing what we're doing". Except those laymen also pay the price for your oh so advanced calculus. It's their money and their country and their currency too.

You can't outsmart math. There is no such thing as free money.

It is a dangerous game to perpetually borrow money in the name of John Maynard Keynes based on his assertions that more money in circulation is always better. It's not working out that way, and we're going to hit a tipping point where the house of cards collapses and you will say "well you did it wrong".

[–]wise_man_wise_guy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's always a balance in there somewhere. Few of us really understand how the internet works, but generically we have some idea. Somewhere in there is a line where the uneducated layman gets to have a legitimate but generally uninformed opinion on the matter vs. his opinion being of no real value.

I'm not really trying to defend the Keynesian model here, just saying that the presented synopsis offers little more value to the layman than my opinion on proper security protocols on internet traffic. It presents a nice story, but doesn't really teach you anything.

[–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Inflation is fine as long as the GDP is growing too, which it is not. You're taking a very short term look at the problem. Eventually, if we do nothing about the debt problem, the scales will tip and we will see hyperinflation because we are forced to devalue our currency just to pay our bills. My point is we should be doing something about it now before it gets out of control, which it will without serious reforms.

[–]wise_man_wise_guy 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Keep in mind you are looking at a number in a silo. The U.S. also gets net interest income from other sources as well, so generally from a budget standpoint it is best to marry the two components together.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/09/5-facts-about-the-national-debt-what-you-should-know/

I agree it is eventually possible, but as it stands today most of your sources looking at M3 or whatever other fact they spout about the national debt are likely at least a little misleading. It is something to keep in check, yes, but as it stands today the information we have would suggest our existing debt is as likely to bankrupt the U.S. as gay marriage or legalized marijuana is to destroy the country.

Poor behavior in the future could change all of that, but right now low interest rates essentially make the "money" almost free. So we are ok for now. But we'll see.

[–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agree to disagree. I don't know where the tipping point is but adding $15T to the debt every decade is unsustainable.

[–]Naieve 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The tipping point will be when investors decide that the T-Bond isn't a sound investment based on the US Government budget.

Considering the actions of Congress. This will come as a surprise to them, and we will experience a run on the T-Bond market as everyone who can drops their positions.

Then the Second Great Depression.

I would love to see sanity take place some time in the next 15 years. I simply have no faith in the US Federal Government.

[–]aliendude5300 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

So what you're saying is we need to triple the tax rate? /s

[–]Anlarb 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

We paid off the ww2 debt with a 91% tax rate and then shifted into a balanced budget with a 70% tax rate.

You care about fiscal responsibility? Stop trying to defy basic multiplication.

[–]highmrfriedmanite -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Psst. just because the highest marginal rate was 91% doesn't mean that anybody paid it.

[–]Anlarb 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thats the point, business expenses are tax deductible. Instead of cashing out, businesses reinvest their money.

People are hired, wages rise (competition), taxes are paid on that income; property and goods for that expansion are purchased, generating sales tax and increased property values; superior techniques spread, the market becomes more efficient, productivity increases.

[–]92235 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm taking a financial statement analysis class and we were talking about pensions. Today we talked about the federal governments financial statements. That national debt number you have listed is only the debt paid to bond holders. This does not include the unfunded obligations we have to pay for social security and medicare. Those obligations are something like $40 or $50 trillion. This is on top of the $20 trillion national debt.

[–]eitauisunity 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

According to Justfacts.com, at the close of FY 2015, accounting for all US Federal assets, the total liability is $78 Trillion. Now, keep in mind, that includes all assets, liquid or otherwise. The US government is pretty much insolvent, and it is going to continue going on until people stop participating in the financial system. Liberals like to bitch about the "Wealth Gap" and the "Unfair transfer of wealth." Fucking look at the shit the government is pulling. They pretty much get to skim wealth right off the top of the financial system by controlling the interest and inflation rate. You are being robbed by participating in the system.

[–]Alex-Muad_Dibpolitical symbiosis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

According to some economists the debt can be valued at as much as $70 trillion

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]92235 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    How would having more liabilities than assets (unfunded liability) net to zero?

    [–]Xoxo717 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Because someone said it on reddit. Try to keep up.

    [–]Anlarb 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Another way to look at it is if one spouse insists that taking their paycheck to the racetrack will get them more money.

    Thirty years of not taxing the rich has not paid off.

    [–]frog_licker 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    That's not really accurate because most families don't own the currency that is the world's reserve currency (the USD) and have debt that is the world's 'risk free' asset on which all other assets are priced with varying amounts of risk (US Treasuries). Comparing a country that can print its own money that the world relies on to the average family is disingenuous.

    [–]1wayst80 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They're not comparing it to the average family, they're comparing it to an imaginary family to show how ridiculous it looks when you spend like you can print your own money

    [–]triumphofmelanin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Who's gonna break our legs if we don't pay our debt?

    [–]JimBulloosheet(insert BS label) 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    but but muh welfares and muh military puride! if you gots a military you might as well use dem. and dem poor people aren't gonna feed themselves, dats what the govmint fo'.

    [–]marginalboy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I get that there's a good argument for reducing the debt, but this isn't even close to it. There's almost nothing in common between the two.

    [–]Alex-Muad_Dibpolitical symbiosis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The issue of present face-value debt and the political obfuscations of a "debt-ceiling" are not what's necessarily important. Sure, we have amassed a large amount of debts that we have an obligation to pay back to creditors, but arguably what's more important are things like the gov'ts role in the private economy, and ultimately the future fiscal tax burdens in the form of gov't spending and overall outlays. As long as our productive capacity is secured, and certain policies get reformed (ie. entitlements, tax reform, etc.) then there shouldn't be too much to worry about.

    Also, this number could be inaccurate because it doesn't account for some "off-balance sheet liabilities" that are both implicit and explicit. According to this paper, total liabilities could amount to as much as $70 trillion USD.

    [–]TW3_ModSquad 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You're leaving out the part where the family owns millions of dollars in assets, operates the largest business in the world, and has never failed to pay back a debt.

    [–]natek53 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Right now inflation is about 1.5%. The interest on U.S. treasuries with a term less than 7 years is no greater than 1.3%, and on 30 year treasuries is ~2.5% (sources: inflation and treasury yields).

    In other words, our short-term debt is so cheap right now, we literally gain (inflation adjusted) money by borrowing money. For our long-term debt, we lose very little.

    If you could borrow money as cheaply as the U.S. government currently does, you'd be stupid not to borrow as much as you were allowed.

    [–]Alex-Muad_Dibpolitical symbiosis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Interesting you mention these links because we were examining those today in my monetary econ class. At least the slope is somewhat positive now (hinting at positive expectations for returns in the long-run) versus the negative slope that happened amid the 08' crisis.

    [–]truthie 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This is a completely misleading oversimplification, or something written by someone who just doesn't understand how the trade deficit works. Why do you guys always defer to the most childish answers that actually answer nothing?

    [–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    This is not about a trade deficit. Can you not read?

    [–]truthie -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Haha, holy shit you seriously don't understand the basic and inextricable relationship between the trade deficit and national debt?? What a hopelessly simplistic misunderstanding. And you're the one who posted this? Yikes!

    [–]TheHornyHobbit[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ha! You got me. Please educate me on how the trade deficit and national debt are causally linked at all. I'm gonna guess you'll spout some protectionist BS about how China and Mexico "took r jerbs"

    [–]cA05GfJ2K6 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm glad to see some people actually make sense of this issue. You cannot compare the national debt to personal debt, especially not apples to apples as is presented here.

    [–]bambooskeleton -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    No. There are lots of reasons why it is not as simple as a household budget.

    [–]ghoti_styx -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is the kind of dumbshit eighth grade understanding of economics that lets people dismiss libertarians as kooks.

    A nation is not a household. Especially the us.

    [–]polynomialpusher -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They two are not comparable. Much better to be uneducated about it though and just make useless income statements.

    [–]MortalTomcat -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ah yes, because states and households are perfectly analogous when it comes to debt. /s

    [–]godlameroso -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The budget is not the total amount of money the Government has to spend. It's the money they've allocated to spend for their things.