# Eliminate The National Debt? Here's How! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642 "2004-07-05T14:46:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/41 "2004-07-06T17:50:44Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > . For example, Yosemite National Park is carried on the government’s books at zero asset value…when we all know that it would be worth BILLIONS of dollars if it were privately owned. Probably it could be sold for billions of dollars if the private owners could exploit it economically. For instance producing lumber, building a theme park, charging for visits and tours, etc…Otherwise, it has no economical value. > [@](#): > > So what is wrong with selling it off in the form of a realestae investment fund shares? Nothing would be wrong, but who would buy it and why? If I choose to invest some of my money in Yosemite’s park share, what kind of return can I expect? What would be the dividends of this “investment”? Will the investors be allowed to cut the trees, search for minerals which could be mined, charge for visits? If not, what kind of investment is that? Why would I pay for a piece of real estate that I’m not allowed to use and which doesn’t produce any income, hence which actually has no value? Would you buy a share in your neighbor’s house under the condition that you wont be allowed to live in the house nor to rent it? The only thing I could imagine would be for the new owners to rent it to the US goverment, if it stays a national park. But then it’s not much different from keeping the debt. The USA will have to pay the rent instead of paying the debt’s interests. What would it change? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/42 "2004-07-06T18:32:17Z")
As long as we’re talking accounting, I wonder what the depreciation on those kind of assets would be. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/43 "2004-07-06T18:46:22Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Let us say that 500 million shares are sold to the American people; the sale price is $20.00/share…that is $10 billion. These shares yield profits through park admissions, concessions, etc. What is so different? The American people (as investors) STILL OWN the park! I assume from your references to “admissions, concessions, etc.” that you want the National Parks to continue to serve as places where Americans can go to relax and discover the natural wonders of their country. You didn’t answer my question about whether mining or logging or massive development would be allowed, so i’m going to assume that you just intend for the Parks to stay basically the way they are, except that they will be owned by shareholders and not by the government. If that is the case, then i’m afraid that **clairobscur** is right–there’s no way these places are going to break even, let alone show a profit. The National Parks Service [2003 Annual Report](http://www.doi.gov/pfm/annrept/nps_03_par.pdf) (warning: large pdf) shows clearly that the income generated by the National Parks does not even come close to covering operating expenses. If you look on pages 34 and 53 of the report, you will see the following figures: ```auto Cost - Services Provided to the Public 2,710,492 Revenue Earned from the Public (261,406) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Cost of Services to the Public 2,449,086 Cost - Services Provided to Federal Agencies 76,246 Revenue Earned from Federal Agencies (74,006) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Cost of Services Provided to Federal Agencies 2,240 Net Cost of Operations $ 2,451,326 (all figures are in '000s) ``` So, the NPS as a whole spends almost $2.5 billion each year to provide its services to the American people and to other federal agencies. The federal agencies section almost breaks even, so let’s just focus on the public services. If you get rid of the government funding that basically allows the NPS to carry out this task, how is the Service going to survive? Because i assume that, in your zeal to cut government spending, you’re not going to want the government to prop up the parks if they can’t make a profit. If you want these newly-privatized parks to make money, you’re going to have to rely on providing services to the public, and charging for those services. Services provided to the public cost, last year, a bit over 10x what the public paid in fees, admission costs, etc. Do you really think that people will still come if you raise prices by 900 percent? And even raising them that much would barely allow you to break even. Sure, there are factors that i haven’t taken into account, but even these fairly rudimentary calculations suggest that, absent any plan to radically revise the way the parks are actually used, they are not going to be much of a lure for investors. Of course, there is a separate argument about whether or not the government should be subsidizing the NPS to the extent that it does, but no matter what you think of that issue, the fact is that a privatized park system is extremely unlikely to provide a profitable investment opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/44 "2004-07-06T19:27:11Z")
A fair price could never be had for national treasures such as Yosemite. The market price would be based on the potential yield, irrespective of the huge existence value. (See Kubursi for info on calculating existence value - - it’s a fascinating field!) Instead of selling Yosemite, what might be more effective would be to lease certain rights, such as rights to manage the park under government regulation, as is already done in many places. This allows for multiple uses more easily, for specific rights can be leased where appropriate, and restrictions on leases can ensure that the existence value is taken into consideration, rather than just the potential yield. The question then, however, would simply come down to who can run the park on a more cost effective basis - - the park service or a private contractor. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/45 "2004-07-06T19:34:47Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > . . . the fact is that a privatized park system is extremely unlikely to provide a profitable investment opportunity. I agree with you, but would like to point out that zecs in Quebec are self-financing as long as one does not consider fire control. I thnk that what it comes down to is what level of facility and service is provided for what price. Zecs are self-financing because usually there are few if any amenities, and no services. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/46 "2004-07-07T06:01:28Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Probably be easier to build a time machine, then go back to 2000 and prevent George W. Bush from being “elected.” 😉 My favorite fantasy! How would you do it, rjung? Whisper in Gore’s ear, “no, no, no, not just a few counties – call for a _state-wide_ recount!”? Or see to it that West Palm Beach uses a normal (non-butterfly) ballot? ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/47 "2004-07-07T06:09:12Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Eisenhower is correct, as far as he goes. But that ain’t far enough. “Every gun that is **not** made, every warship **not** launched, every rocket **not** fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who **used to be employed** , those who \*\*used to be productive members of the economy and are no longer.” > > What a great idea, though. Let’s just stop spending all that money, thereby putting an untold millions of people outta work and start _giving away_ the treasury to a non-productive segment of the population. Shouldn’t be at all a problem removing the taxpayers from the equation. At least for a year, or so. Eisenhower, in this respect, was an idiot. Government spending for things like this keeps people employed and creates jobs. Stop spending that money and the unemployment rolls skyrocket, simply adding to the misery. And making a militarily weaker USA in the not-so-long term. Brilliant. ??? All the spending on star wars missile defence, big weapons systems, military hardware of all sorts – it’s all just to put people to work? To reduce unemployment? Why not put them to work doing something useful? Something that will do some good? Repairing our infrastructure? Developing alternative power sources to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Building and staffing new schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics, housing? De-programming Fred Phelps? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Garden\_Gate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@The\_Garden\_Gate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Garden_Gate)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/48 "2004-07-07T13:51:20Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Or just stop throwing trillions into an illegal war and into a grossly oversized military industrial complex. Your not going to get the money back from the poor countries, so why bother wasting time adding “interest”. The countries demanding the money should just let them off the money and forget about it. “Love thy neighbour” 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/49 "2004-07-07T14:25:59Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Are you actually suggesting the the US sell off all of it assets? To individuals? Now wouldn’t that make a holy mess. And a big “Hi!” and “Welcome back!” to Thatcher’s Britain. It’s like the 1980s all over again! This was the policy followed by the Evil One; privatisation. Basically it involves selling national assets at ridiculously knocked-down prices to your business buddies. You get a short-term cash injection to tide over your finances and pay for those tax cuts. Meanwhile the public get shafted by monopolistic companies exploiting assests that they _used_ to own. Overall benefit to country: nil. Benefit for those who pulled this scam off: Future position on the company board. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/50 "2004-07-07T21:42:48Z")
> [@](#): > > ??? All the spending on star wars missile defence, big weapons systems, military hardware of all sorts – it’s all just to put people to work? To reduce unemployment? I didn’t say that, but it is certainly a substantial benefit we’d be tossing out the window if we put an end to government spending on the military as the Eisenhower quote seems to be advocating. > [@](#): > > Why not put them to work doing something useful? Something that will do some good? Repairing our infrastructure? Developing alternative power sources to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Building and staffing new schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics, housing? De-programming Fred Phelps? With what money do you intend to pay these people? The money not spent on the military has been given away, again as the Eisenhower quote seems to imply, to the hungry, the homeless, the downtrodden and poor. Eisenhower didn’t say that every tank not built is one more mile of Interstate Highway for hauling commercial goods. You’ve posed two strawmen to me, and I’m not gonna defend arguments I’m not making simply because you wanna foist 'em off on me. Rather, I agree with you that spending the money in a sustainable and productive manner is far better than tossing down the toilet of wealth re-distribution -if it’s gotta be spent at all. Which it doesn’t; not at the rate it’s currently being spent anyway. All did up there was to take exception to Eisenhower’s glib statement (Something I’d really like to see in context; I seriously doubt he was advocating what’s implied in that single passage.) and try to show how stupid it is to balance an equation that has but one side. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/51 "2004-07-08T05:55:22Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > I didn’t say that, but it is certainly a substantial benefit we’d be tossing out the window if we put an end to government spending on the military as the Eisenhower quote seems to be advocating. > With what money do you intend to pay these people? The money not spent on the military has been given away, again as the Eisenhower quote seems to imply, to the hungry, the homeless, the downtrodden and poor. Eisenhower didn’t say that every tank not built is one more mile of Interstate Highway for hauling commercial goods. > > You’ve posed two strawmen to me, and I’m not gonna defend arguments I’m not making simply because you wanna foist 'em off on me. Rather, I agree with you that spending the money in a sustainable and productive manner is far better than tossing down the toilet of wealth re-distribution -if it’s gotta be spent at all. Which it doesn’t; not at the rate it’s currently being spent anyway. All did up there was to take exception to Eisenhower’s glib statement (Something I’d really like to see in context; I seriously doubt he was advocating what’s implied in that single passage.) and try to show how stupid it is to balance an equation that has but one side. You say, with what money do I intend to pay these people? I thought that was plain. I was saying, if govt officials’ real purpose in spending money on expensive weapons systems, missile defence, etc, is to put people to work, why not instead put people to work doing something useful? The money I’d use to put people to work on repairing the infrastructure and other worthwhile projects would be the money that I’d take from speding on expensive unneeded weapons systems, unlikely to ever work missile defence, etc. I don’t know what you mean about “the money not spent on the military has been given away”. I was talking about spending that is classified as “military spending” or “defense spending”. OTOH (to add something I didn’t say), anoher option exists. Instead of shifting money from defense spending to non-defense spending, we could spend less on weapons systems, period. In other words, reduce govt spending, reduce the debt/deficit, reduce taxes. Question: do you think a really big reduction in the military budget would would result in economic collapse? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/52 "2004-07-08T11:48:17Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean about “the money not spent on the military has been given away”. I was talking about spending that is classified as “military spending” or “defense spending”. I say it’s been “given away” on the basis of the Eisenhower quote. That quote implies that if we quit spending so much on military materiel, there’d be more for welfare programs. Ergo, it’s being given away to a non-productive sector. (Non-productive from the gov’t view, meaning that it generates no new, or greatly reduced, revenue for additional gov’t operations - no tax dollars.) > [@](#): > > Question: do you think a really big reduction in the military budget would would result in economic collapse? Not a _collapse_ perhaps, but putting millions of people out of work is certainly gonna cause a large downturn. Both because, well, these people gotta find new jobs, and the havoc it would play with the stock market. It all depends, of course, on how big a cut you wanna make in military spending - and how that money made available is then spent. Wealth re-distribution is a very inefficient means of spending money. Again, I’m not trying to argue against your proposition that money not spent on military products can be just as effectively spent on public infrastructure; in all likelihood it can—and just as likely to greater _immediate_ public benefit (don’t know about the long-term public benefit; a strong military offers protections for the future of a nation that I won’t even try to assess here). I’m arguing only against the idiocy of the Eisenhower quote, where money not spent on the military is given away—wasted—with no return to the government. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/53 "2004-07-09T02:03:19Z")
Eisenhower, being a conservative, was hardly advocating welfare spending in place of military spending. He was merely recognizing that if you spend money on a battleship, it’s not going to be spent on subway cars. Let us compare and contrast these two, as both involve government spending: The battleship, once built, is done accruing any sort of economic benefit to the country, in any direct way. The subway cars, by contrast, will spend their entire useful lives shuttling people back and forth to their places of employment and, as a bonus, will also carry tourists and shoppers and so on. That’s the tradeoff. Now, a military asset _is_ an economic asset, to the extent that it protects the country from damage, as 9/11 certainly illustrated. That single attack caused massive amounts of economic damage, and obviously if military assets had been available to stop that attack, it would have had a very direct economic benefit. (Which makes you wonder why we’re spending all that money but still can’t stop such an attack, but I suppose that’s an entirely different thread.) But such direct economic benefit from military spending is rare in the US. Thankfully. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/54 "2004-07-09T12:53:27Z")
> [@](#): > > The battleship, once built, is done accruing any sort of economic benefit to the country, in any direct way. Except for, ya know, all the materiel required to keep it in operation, the maintenance supplies, the periodic upgrades, the supply and support of the bases where these ships are ported, any number of private commercial enterprises in the vicinity of military stations - all of which is supplied by, and purchased from, the civilian sector, thus creating a supply of civilian jobs, and in turn, tax revenue to the gov’t. The economic benefits, to both the private sector and, (what we’re actually talking about here) to the gov’t, in the form of taxes returned hardly stops when the ship is launched. I mean, you put gas in your car, buy car care products, get oil changes, new brakes once in a while, don’t ya? Monetary transactions, all of which are taxed, certainly don’t stop once you’ve signed the loan application, right? Same deal. > [@](#): > > Eisenhower, being a conservative, was hardly advocating welfare spending in place of military spending. He was merely recognizing that if you spend money on a battleship, it’s not going to be spent on subway cars. Which is why I said I’d like to see the quote in context and expressed disbelief that Eisenhower actually meant what that quote, read in isolation, implies. > [@](#): > > (Which makes you wonder why we’re spending all that money but still can’t stop such an attack, but I suppose that’s an entirely different thread.) Yep, different thread, but the way the military is currently organized and the rules under which it may be deployed are the reason why it is almost wholly ineffective against terrorist attacks. Terrorist simply use a strategy and tactics that which are designed to take advantage of this weakness. There’s no real mystery why the military is ineffective here. > [@](#): > > But such direct economic benefit from military spending is rare in the US. Deterrence. Intangible asset. I alluded to this earlier. Guns and butter. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642/55 "2004-07-09T14:00:52Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > All did up there was to take exception to Eisenhower’s glib statement (Something I’d really like to see in context; I seriously doubt he was advocating what’s implied in that single passage.) and try to show how stupid it is to balance an equation that has but one side. The speech was made to point out the futility of the cold war, to call the post-Stalin USSR to task with respect to the USSR’s dangerous aggression, to announce the USA’s global interest in stable nations, to propose military and arms limitations and UN inspection, and to declare total war on poverty. Here is the context of the excerpted passage: > [@](#): > > Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. > > This world in arms is not spending money alone. > > It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. > > The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. > > It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. > > It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. > > It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. > > We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. > > We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. > > This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. > This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Eisenhower went on to speak on the necessity of a free world, specifically including eastern Europe, south-east Asia, and Korea. He warned of atomic war, and proposed disarmament programs including military personnel limitations, arms limitations, and UN inspection. He declared war against poverty: > [@](#): > > The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need. > > The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms. > . . . . > The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health. > > We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world. > > We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively guard the peace and security of all peoples. You should read the entire speech: [http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/chance.htm](http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/chance.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eliminate-the-national-debt-heres-how/253642.md?page=2)