In other words, money the government owes itself. You used the term ‘public debt’ originally. I guess we’ll agree it’s 76% then.
And if you choose 2010 as a starting point, or 1950, or some other arbitrary year, it’s considerably less. Why 2007, exactly? As another poster said, this looks very much like cherry-picking data to suit your purpose.
Pass. Given the poor quality of the information you’ve presented here, it would clearly be a waste of time.
BTW, you seem to still be missing the point. My main question was, what would be the advantges of Mr. Trump’s ‘plan’ (more a notion, really)?
Simplicity itself. Pay off our debts at a discounted rate, and the result is we are debt free! Therefore, our standing with potential creditors will be enhanced, making us a much more desirable lendee!
No. Public debt = government debt which is 106%.
Intragovernmental agencies holding some govt. debt is of zero relevence. US government faces liabilities (through those intragovernmental agencies) for Social Security and other entitlement programs that exceed the funds in the various trust funds by $60 trillion. (Yes $60 trillion!! )
No, the point is trajectory of debt growth vs. GDP growth is unsustainable.
Let us say they decide to keep debt almost constant (meaning they don’t make the bubble even bigger) . say debt grows just by 0.01%. But GDP will fall in that case as economy certainly goes into recession. Then would you say that debt is growing infinite times faster than GDP?
The point is there is a debt bubble.
I will provide links to earlier posts later on if you are fine with that.
About those debates. Gonna put down my nickel to say they won’t happen. Trump will refuse to lend his stature and credibility to Hillary deVille because of his unfair treatment by the media. He will harvest the same amount of media coverage without having to face being contradicted by facts.
You know, this is still six months out, I’m beginning to think things could get kinda weird…
As I know you realize, Trump’s voters CANNOT be made to understand that. Full stop. Because it’s boring numbers stuff! Instead, how about some snappy nicknames for his political opponents–“Goofus” for Elizabeth Warren! It’s funny because it’s so specific! Hahahaha!
There’s nothing Trump can say about his economic plans–no matter how appallingly idiotic and dangerous those plans may be–that will bother his fans. They have faith that he will Bring Back The Factories With High-Paying Jobs, and nothing–nothing–can shake that faith.
Are you playing devil’s advocate, or are you just not that much into economics? An inability to borrow on the part of the US would plunge the world into depression. Has zip to do with honesty or lying.
Students and credit-card borrowers are expected to pay their debts 100 cents on the dollar. Homeowners were expected to pay in full even when their home equity was negative. But Trump is a businessman who has built his career on stiffing bondholders.That’s what he knows. Give a kid a hammer and he’ll find a lot of things look like nails. I wouldn’t elect that kid to be President but many Americans feel differently.
Congratulations on converting to annual rates. You do know a little math. Now try this:
If you wanted to measure the rate of Northern Hemisphere warming, would you compare January temperature with a summer temperature six months laterand then extrapolate?
No? But that’s similar to what you do by cherry-picking the aftermath of the greatest financial crisis in almost a century.
I support sane, gradual moves to reduce public debt. But please let’s not muddy the waters by being gullible and grabbing numbers from clowns and gold peddlers on Youtube.
Schiff is a joke. He’s been predicting an economic apocalypse since I can remember, and then of course claimed he knew the market crash of 2007-8 would happen. I trust his opinion about as much as I trust Trump.
According to his filings with the Federal Election Commission, Trump is the owner or serves in an executive capacity some 515 businesses, of which 268 contain his name only, which implies full ownership of those businesses at least. Trump has taken exactly four of his businesses into bankruptcy, and even those aren’t the types of bankruptcy most people are familiar with where the slate is wiped clean and creditors lose everything. Trump’s organization took those four companies into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which allows the the debtor to reorganize the business in an attempt to save it. In the event the debtor becomes insolvent, its creditors take over the reorganized business, whereupon they’re free to run it or sell it off themselves. Thus there’s at least some chance in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy that the businesses’ creditors may recover all or some of their original investment, with additional profits possible in the event the business’s creditors are able to operate the reorganized business successfully.
So it’s utter nonsense to say Trump has ‘built his career on stiffing bondholders’, and in the interest of fighting ignorance people around here really need to wise up and stop making that claim.
Huckabee came out strongly for party unity. Blasting Ryan. Huck has defended Trump several times.Like in Feb
Huckabee might be considered for VP. Huckabee did a good job as my Governor and he knows the Clinton machine better than most outsiders. He’d be a good asset for Trump.
I clicked your link just enough to see you abbreviated “25 years” to “a couple of decades.” :smack:
But let’s not worry about economics yet. I’ll teach you some simple arithmetic. Start with this word problem:
็By how much must debt growth exceed GDP growth to change 76% into 100% in 25 years?
Solution: Start by writing x^25 = 1/.76. Rearrange terms and type “exp(ln(1/.76)/25)” into the Google calculator. Google will display “1.01103794737” 1.104% is therefore the growth you would need were GDP constant.
But GDP growth won’t be zero. Suppose it is 2%, or more generally, u. Then by algebra you will find the ratio of debt growth to GDP growth, given the 1.104% net increase, to be 1.01104 + .01104/u or 1.56 when u = 2%.
That’s right. 1.56 times. Not your scare figure of 4.9 times (let alone your initial gambit of “10 times” :eek: ). 1.56 times.
I know what you’re thinking: “Ten times. … One and a half times … Who cares? It’s the principle of the thing!!” Well, Peter Schiff may not care, and you may not care, but if you want to have an intelligent conversation with adults it really would be better not to just pull random numbers out of your ass. (Or Mr. Schiff’s ass as the case may be.)
It’s even worse than that. His preference is to abolish all corporate and personal income tax and raise all government revenue via a sales tax.
Even a 1.56 reinforces my point. The trajectory of debt growth vs GDP growth is unsustainable. It should scare you. You seem to comfort yourself thinking debt is getting reduced. It is not.
USA rapidly increased its Federal Debt following the 2008 recession. My view is that GDP is still showing the 2% growth rate due to lag effect of that rapid debt expansion and that there could be a recession soon.
GDP growth rate assumption of 2% is very optimistic. Japan started to age before USA. it has tried QEs, zero rate, high Federal debt (230% of GDP) already. So, I calculated average of GDP growth rates from 1996 to 2014 from this source. It comes to around 0.8%. I know this is not accurate but using it for a rough estimate. More technology (more automation, more jobs redundant) than last 2 decades is also a headwind for jobs and GDP imo.
If you take GDP growth rate as 0.8%, 1.56 will go up to 2.4 times.
Anyhow, I think we are missing the point here. The point is, trajectory of debt growth vs GDP growth is unsustainable.
No. You miss my point which is that you lose all credibility with scare figures like “ten times” when simple arithmetic shows the correct number to be “less than two times.” If your reasoning were correct — it isn’t — you’d have no need to make up fake inflated numbers.
If you want serious debate, start posting real facts instead of gibberish. How many chances do you expect to get?
Wrong again, as even the post to which you respond shows. :smack: In another previous post I said I favored rational and gradual debt reduction.
You support debt reduction by defaulting, and don’t seem to realize default has severe consequences similar to devaluation. In other posts you advocate policies that would lead to inflation. Yet, in still other posts you advocate a return to the gold standard. And the common thread which links all your “economics” posts is the short-term direction of gold or stock prices. :rolleyes:
It is you who are missing many points. And you seem to have developed a philosophy based on several mutually contradictory YouTube bloggers. :smack:
