PDA

View Full Version : The US Debt: too big to pay off



Peter1469
08-20-2012, 06:36 PM
http://www.crisishq.com/why-prepare/economic-collapse-inevitable/

A long article that goes into the numbers behind the debt.

Goldie Locks
08-20-2012, 07:55 PM
Yes, it is not doable.

URF8
08-20-2012, 08:00 PM
Theoretically, the national debt could be paid off by seizing about one third of the principal value of all private property in the country, or by selling most federal lands to private parties. But either of those actions would trigger civil strife.

Chris
08-20-2012, 08:10 PM
It could be repudiated.

Peter1469
08-20-2012, 08:27 PM
It could be repudiated.

Yes it could. And I have advocated repudiating the debt owned by the US Government. It is fairly substantial, and I couldn't imagine why the rating agencies would have heart-burn over that.

If we abolished the Fed we could print our own money interest free and save a lot more in the future.

URF8
08-20-2012, 10:03 PM
Every possible alternative leads to the same result. The average standard of living in America becomes much meaner and poorer than it is currently. That conclusion is inescapable.

roadmaster
08-20-2012, 11:58 PM
I don't think so. Stop giving millions away to other countries. Invest the taxes we pay only on companies willing to build here to create jobs for Americans. Stop funding civil wars and return illegals to their own country. That for a start would help.

wingrider
08-21-2012, 02:20 AM
add to that Roadmaster that America needs to stop being the worlds police dept... if other countries need our military .. they pay for it.. that simple.. all the men all the equipment all the technology, and all the weapons.. think what that would do to the MIC

Carygrant
08-21-2012, 03:05 AM
When I outlined true unemployment exceeded 15% and that US debt and obligations exceeded $100 trillion , I was labelled The Troll .
But whilst it is nice to see that such statements are increasingly reported as facts rather than wild speculation , it is no good stopping there intellectually .
If lay people figured these facts out by themselves a few years ago , it is inconceivable that the power brokers did not also have them at their finger tips from at least the same time and -- much more important --- have agreed defensive actions in depth .
The priority should be to figure out what has already been decided as strategy and is already being implemented .
I am sure that Washington has entered into huge collaboration with Bejing and that all major financial decisions are now made only with 100% chinese agreement.
Obvious targets are to get rid of the Federal Reserve after one last huge dud money printing party , devalue the $US hugely -- 50% in three years , and lose all the unfair advantages of petrodollar recycling as china takes over the creation of a new world reserve currency .
The resultant effect for America and the EU will be catastrophic .Major street rioting will be the least of troubles .
What do others think will happen?

URF8
08-21-2012, 03:51 AM
Ammunition will become the new currency in the Former States of America.

Akula
08-21-2012, 04:08 AM
Theoretically, the national debt could be paid off by seizing about one third of the principal value of all private property in the country, or by selling most federal lands to private parties. But either of those actions would trigger civil strife.

That might solve it for THAT DAY...The "meter" would continue to run, though, so to speak.

We are borrowing just to pay the interest on our current loans. The government can't tax us fast enough to keep up with current operating expenses.
That is, essentially, bankruptcy.
They can maneuver and manipulate and cook the books for a period of time but it is unsustainable and will eventually collapse.

Akula
08-21-2012, 04:11 AM
Yes it could. And I have advocated repudiating the debt owned by the US Government. It is fairly substantial, and I couldn't imagine why the rating agencies would have heart-burn over that.

If we abolished the Fed we could print our own money interest free and save a lot more in the future.

Printing money is a slippery slope. The more they print, the less it's worth.
Would we use the gold standard to back up the "new" money"?...because I don't believe there is ANYTHING in Fort Knox. I think it's all part of the fraud.

Chris
08-21-2012, 06:41 AM
I don't advocate repudiation of the debt, and agree with whoever said each solution amounts to the same thing, economic collapse.

RollingWave
08-21-2012, 08:52 AM
Theoretically given that monetary devaluation pretty much continues non-stop, by the time most of those debts are fulfilled it's probably not worth the same thing as it is today anyway.

Most of us foreigners joke that the US debt is backed up by the most secure thing in the world, the US military ;)

Mister D
08-21-2012, 10:13 AM
Theoretically given that monetary devaluation pretty much continues non-stop, by the time most of those debts are fulfilled it's probably not worth the same thing as it is today anyway.

Most of us foreigners joke that the US debt is backed up by the most secure thing in the world, the US military ;)

:laugh:

Peter1469
08-21-2012, 09:38 PM
When I outlined true unemployment exceeded 15% and that US debt and obligations exceeded $100 trillion , I was labelled The Troll .
But whilst it is nice to see that such statements are increasingly reported as facts rather than wild speculation , it is no good stopping there intellectually .
If lay people figured these facts out by themselves a few years ago , it is inconceivable that the power brokers did not also have them at their finger tips from at least the same time and -- much more important --- have agreed defensive actions in depth .
The priority should be to figure out what has already been decided as strategy and is already being implemented .
I am sure that Washington has entered into huge collaboration with Bejing and that all major financial decisions are now made only with 100% chinese agreement.
Obvious targets are to get rid of the Federal Reserve after one last huge dud money printing party , devalue the $US hugely -- 50% in three years , and lose all the unfair advantages of petrodollar recycling as china takes over the creation of a new world reserve currency .
The resultant effect for America and the EU will be catastrophic .Major street rioting will be the least of troubles .
What do others think will happen?

You are on the right track, although you underestimate the US debt and unemployment.

But I would end the Fed, then then print interest free greenbacks to inflate our way out of our debt. Or at least try.

roadmaster
08-21-2012, 10:16 PM
add to that Roadmaster that America needs to stop being the worlds police dept... if other countries need our military .. they pay for it.. that simple.. all the men all the equipment all the technology, and all the weapons.. think what that would do to the MIC

I agree 100%

RollingWave
08-22-2012, 04:03 AM
You are on the right track, although you underestimate the US debt and unemployment.

But I would end the Fed, then then print interest free greenbacks to inflate our way out of our debt. Or at least try.

How would that work anyway, if a country again allows multiple competiting currency to circulate, wouldn't that create economic chaos?(it does happen in the past but the scale of commercialization wasn't nearly the same) and if you still mean one national currency, then how is that different from the FED?

Yes the US can and most likely will to some extend inflate their way out of the debt, when Herbert Hoover got into politics he made about 4 million bucks, which made him one of the richest man in the country at that point, today it would barely put him into the well off catagory. it is true that pretty much all currency gradually deflates in nominal terms, and most of the debt are slated up to 20-30 years, factoring in even natural inflation and the debt's value look much lower by the time they actually all materialize, add in more forced inflation and of printing money and the problem can change quite dramatically in nature , but of course high inflation is not good either.

Chris
08-22-2012, 08:56 AM
Inflation is just another form of taxation.

Captain Obvious
08-22-2012, 05:04 PM
Inflation is just another form of taxation.

Not to be picky, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Peter1469
08-22-2012, 07:44 PM
How would that work anyway, if a country again allows multiple competiting currency to circulate, wouldn't that create economic chaos?(it does happen in the past but the scale of commercialization wasn't nearly the same) and if you still mean one national currency, then how is that different from the FED?

Yes the US can and most likely will to some extend inflate their way out of the debt, when Herbert Hoover got into politics he made about 4 million bucks, which made him one of the richest man in the country at that point, today it would barely put him into the well off catagory. it is true that pretty much all currency gradually deflates in nominal terms, and most of the debt are slated up to 20-30 years, factoring in even natural inflation and the debt's value look much lower by the time they actually all materialize, add in more forced inflation and of printing money and the problem can change quite dramatically in nature , but of course high inflation is not good either.

The US had multiple currencies for much of its early history. But not to fear- I would end the federal reserve.

Peter1469
08-22-2012, 07:45 PM
Not to be picky, but what the fuck are you talking about?

When the government prints more money, the value of any money that you saved is worth less. That is a tax on you.

Captain Obvious
08-22-2012, 07:51 PM
So printing money is akin to a tax, that I somewhat agree with.

Inflation is not akin to a tax.

... not to be picky.

Chris
08-22-2012, 07:58 PM
So printing money is akin to a tax, that I somewhat agree with.

Inflation is not akin to a tax.

... not to be picky.

Printing money increases the money supply and thereby causes inflation. It's a form of taxation since citizens have less money, in terms of purchasing power it's worth less, and government has more.

Captain Obvious
08-22-2012, 08:00 PM
I don't disagree, but suggesting that inflation is just another form of tax is inaccurate.

Chris
08-22-2012, 08:12 PM
I don't disagree, but suggesting that inflation is just another form of tax is inaccurate.

You'd make a great politician.

Chris
08-22-2012, 08:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4yBrxmEOkY

Captain Obvious
08-22-2012, 08:32 PM
You'd make a great politician.

Now that is either an insult or a solid compliment, I'm guessing it's on the insult spectrum though you may have unwittingly complimented me.

Your statement is still wholly full of shit regardless of how many youtube vids you post.

Inflation is inflation. Printing money is not inflation.

That is economics 101 and common sense. Rehash all the junk that you read and pass on as valid information all you want, someone elses theories are not a substitute for one's common sense.

wingrider
08-22-2012, 08:50 PM
anytime you print money you are devalueing the money already in existance thereby lowering the purchasing power of of the dollar,,

Chris
08-22-2012, 08:50 PM
Now that is either an insult or a solid compliment, I'm guessing it's on the insult spectrum though you may have unwittingly complimented me.

Your statement is still wholly full of shit regardless of how many youtube vids you post.

Inflation is inflation. Printing money is not inflation.

That is economics 101 and common sense. Rehash all the junk that you read and pass on as valid information all you want, someone elses theories are not a substitute for one's common sense.


Inflation is inflation. Printing money is not inflation.

Wow, a truism followed by something no one argued.


That is economics 101 and common sense. Rehash all the junk that you read and pass on as valid information all you want, someone elses theories are not a substitute for one's common sense.

Econ 101 is just a rehash of someone else's junk you read and pass on as valid information when, as you argue, someone else's theories are not a substitute for one's common sense. Thus you've contradicted yourself.

Captain Obvious
08-22-2012, 08:59 PM
Maybe you forgot your original statement, it was all of maybe less than 24 hours ago:


Inflation is just another form of taxation.

Your problem, Chris, is that you spend a lot of time reading and regurgitating shit you find on blogs and youtube videos, but you clearly struggle with even simple concepts. Inflation is inflation, it is not a tax. Printing money is not inflation, it's printing money. It may be a source of inflationary outcomes, but it is not inflation.

Nobody's going to think you're smart because you rehash someone elses ideology, especially when you cannot grasp even the simplest of concepts. That fraud is clear even to high school level economists.

Peter1469
08-22-2012, 09:29 PM
I don't disagree, but suggesting that inflation is just another form of tax is inaccurate.

I disagree. Politicians choose to print money to devalue the debt so they don't have to raise taxes. Your purchasing power can't tell the difference between the two.....

Chris
08-22-2012, 09:33 PM
Maybe you forgot your original statement, it was all of maybe less than 24 hours ago:



Your problem, Chris, is that you spend a lot of time reading and regurgitating shit you find on blogs and youtube videos, but you clearly struggle with even simple concepts. Inflation is inflation, it is not a tax. Printing money is not inflation, it's printing money. It may be a source of inflationary outcomes, but it is not inflation.

Nobody's going to think you're smart because you rehash someone elses ideology, especially when you cannot grasp even the simplest of concepts. That fraud is clear even to high school level economists.

Say, obvious, ever argue ideas instead of people? Try it sometime.

Inflation is a form of tax.

RollingWave
08-22-2012, 09:45 PM
Inflation can be caused by quiet a few things though. and generally pretty much all currency's value continue to deflate in the longer run anyway. some faster than others but it's not like not printing money removes inflation.

I am aware that the US had multiple currency in the past, but that was the day and age when you know.. each State was actually much closer to an independent country than it is today. not surprisingly the US dollar came to be the only currency right at the end of the civil war.

In the past when each bank issued their own notes (such as say... Italy during the renaissance) it was typically the periods where only merchants tend to really use money anyway. the common folks either didn't use any at all, or their lifes were confined to such a small zone that they didn't need to worry about the different currencies. that is obviously not the case today.

Deadwood
08-22-2012, 09:48 PM
add to that Roadmaster that America needs to stop being the worlds police dept... if other countries need our military .. they pay for it.. that simple.. all the men all the equipment all the technology, and all the weapons.. think what that would do to the MIC


I agree. But it ain't going to happen. The USA has still not been paid back in full for the "Lend/Lease" program that supplied our allies in WW2.

Peter1469
08-22-2012, 10:00 PM
Inflation can be caused by quiet a few things though. and generally pretty much all currency's value continue to deflate in the longer run anyway. some faster than others but it's not like not printing money removes inflation.

I am aware that the US had multiple currency in the past, but that was the day and age when you know.. each State was actually much closer to an independent country than it is today. not surprisingly the US dollar came to be the only currency right at the end of the civil war.

In the past when each bank issued their own notes (such as say... Italy during the renaissance) it was typically the periods where only merchants tend to really use money anyway. the common folks either didn't use any at all, or their lifes were confined to such a small zone that they didn't need to worry about the different currencies. that is obviously not the case today.

Printing money causes inflation. There is a real debate whether the overall economic shift will be inflation or deflation. The establishment hates deflation- I favor it over inflation for the ordinary people.

Chris
08-22-2012, 10:32 PM
Inflation can be caused by quiet a few things though.

There can be other causes, an influx of gold from the New World, a natural disaster destroying a high-demand product, etc, but I don't think we can count on those things in the face of an unbearable and likely unpayable debt.

Chris
08-22-2012, 11:20 PM
Earlier, when I said "Inflation is just another form of taxation," Obvious insisted it's not becuase "That is economics 101 and common sense."

Here's some econ 101, Mankiw's Harvard University class in introductory economics (ec 10): The Inflation Tax (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/inflation-tax.html)
One of my ec 10 students wonders whether it is possible to defend inflation:
Why is it such a bad thing for governments to rely more on the "inflation tax"?...

There are many advantages to the inflation tax, including: 1) Painless, free "collection." 2) Progressivity (those with the most accumulated assets pay the most.)
It is a provocative proposal. I don't know any economist who would endorse it, however. To explain why, let me make four points:

1. The inflation tax is not painless....

2. The inflation tax is probably less progressive than one might at first think....

3. The inflation tax would raise only a modest amount of revenue....

4. For reasons that are not fully understood, high inflation tends to be volatile inflation....

Yes, inflation tax is economics 101 and common sense.

RollingWave
08-22-2012, 11:33 PM
Printing money causes inflation. There is a real debate whether the overall economic shift will be inflation or deflation. The establishment hates deflation- I favor it over inflation for the ordinary people.


I think the problem with this arguement is that it goes against common historical occurance, usually when deflation happens it coincided with rather bad economic times. let's use the US dollar's purchase power as an example, if it started at 1 in the 1770s then today is roughly at 0.035 ish. but looking at it's progression, it flucated quite wildly at the start but by the 1800s it settled in the 0.65 ish range, then gradually went up with it peaking at the civil war (at that point 1 dollar actually had more purchase power than in the 1770s). After the civil war it begin to go down but again bounced around ... however then came a extermely noticable drop in the 1920s. where the purchase power of the dollar essentially went down by half. but that was also the first epic boom era of the US.

Run away inflation of course also hurts the economy badly. but the maginal utility of this curve looking at historical context seem to suggest an rough annual inflation around the 5-8% range (depending on the country in question and the stages of the developement) seem to be closer to the high end of the curve . while hyper inflation and deflation makes up the lower ends.


After that it went sharpely up again, I doubt anyone would say the 1930s and 40s were good economic times though. since the 1940s it has fell pretty much consistently.


It is my observation at least, that real deflation in the US almost always came at the same period of pretty bad economic situation, war, or great depressions. This is part of the Kenysian arguement IIRC on why government should do fiscal expansion in bad times.

Money supply limitation does inrease it's individual purchasing power, but usually also comes with the lack of liqudity which doesn't help the overall economy much. one could argue about the negatives of excess debt of course, but if all busniess and households literally live within their means, then we're basically back to the 1700-1800 economy. I doubt one can argue that as a positive development.

Chris
08-24-2012, 09:19 AM
I think the problem with this arguement is that it goes against common historical occurance, usually when deflation happens it coincided with rather bad economic times. let's use the US dollar's purchase power as an example, if it started at 1 in the 1770s then today is roughly at 0.035 ish. but looking at it's progression, it flucated quite wildly at the start but by the 1800s it settled in the 0.65 ish range, then gradually went up with it peaking at the civil war (at that point 1 dollar actually had more purchase power than in the 1770s). After the civil war it begin to go down but again bounced around ... however then came a extermely noticable drop in the 1920s. where the purchase power of the dollar essentially went down by half. but that was also the first epic boom era of the US.

Run away inflation of course also hurts the economy badly. but the maginal utility of this curve looking at historical context seem to suggest an rough annual inflation around the 5-8% range (depending on the country in question and the stages of the developement) seem to be closer to the high end of the curve . while hyper inflation and deflation makes up the lower ends.


After that it went sharpely up again, I doubt anyone would say the 1930s and 40s were good economic times though. since the 1940s it has fell pretty much consistently.


It is my observation at least, that real deflation in the US almost always came at the same period of pretty bad economic situation, war, or great depressions. This is part of the Kenysian arguement IIRC on why government should do fiscal expansion in bad times.

Money supply limitation does inrease it's individual purchasing power, but usually also comes with the lack of liqudity which doesn't help the overall economy much. one could argue about the negatives of excess debt of course, but if all busniess and households literally live within their means, then we're basically back to the 1700-1800 economy. I doubt one can argue that as a positive development.

Your history establishes that like the price of everything else the value of the US dollar fluctuates, even wildly. OK, but your history says nothing of causes. Instead you take up the Keynesian argument that government should intervene to regulate those fluctuations. The Monetarists (Friedman etc) have shown historically it is government mucking with the money supply itself that causes inflating and deflating fluctuations, and the Austrians (Rothbard etc) have done likewise regarding government mucking with the business cycle.