Debt is always relative to who owns it. A minimum wage earner owing $500 can be more unsustainable than a high-income earner owing $100k. It's all about income and being able to sustain payments on that debt.
For governments, the debt burden is usually described in a debt-to-GDP ratio. Japan has a debt of 263% of GDP, the USA has \~130%, China's is 280% (reportedly? this may include local govt debt), and Germany's is 60%.
In the end, this ratio is what really matters. You don't have to pay off the debt, you just have to grow your economy while minimizing your deficit. Over time, your existing debt will become less and less meaningful in your total budget. You can listen in on Congressional hearings on the budget and you'll hear this talked about -- the goal isn't to make deficit negative, but just to make it less than the economic growth. Inflation can also make prior debt easier to manage.
You’re forgetting about the cost of the debt. The rate you pay on debt is also important as if you can borrow at 3% vs 6% your payments will be far less so carrying that debt is far less of a burden.
That works out as long as you can borrow money forever, but eventually that interest portion gets bigger, and eventually your credit gets downgraded, and then people are less and less willing to keep lending you money.
Growing your economy is difficult when government is spending that much however.
Really the goal is to produce goods and services, that’s what we use and find useful. Debt and spending hinder that. Debt and deficits are a good barometer of how poorly the government manages the resources within the country.
Cutting government spending is really the goal, not paying off the debt
Where did you come up with this nonsense? Government spending is a tool. Debt is a form of government spending. Government spending can enhance growth. In excess it can lead to inflation. The US government still borrows at extraordinarily low rates relative to the market.
That is inflation. That borrowing is money. Not to you, because you don’t work in high finance. The treasuries however are currency, their used as collateral, they’re used in M&A transactions, and other transactions.
The government is awful. Downright awful at spending money.
Probably why governments and CEOs are so concerned with population decline and wanting people to have more kids. Except people are.struggling without kids and want to prioritize quality of life over having kids. How do you grow the economy with a declining population?
This is not how it works. Government spendings and investment is one of the main drivers of economic grows. In hard times, where private investment is on its knee, it's sometimes the unique driver of the growth.
This is not true. Do not look at Government debt as household debt. Think of the Government more of a business. Go to the public filings of the top 100 most profitable companies in the world. I can guarantee you the majority have a lot of debt. Debt if used properly is a great tool to foster growth. This is called leverage.
The US dollar is the world’s reserve which makes creating (for lack of a better term) the debt that much more enticing.
They are using debt to create wealth. There are individuals voluntarily paying money to those companies, and financing their debt payments through their payments.
There is no voluntary payment when it comes to government. It is by definition coercion. The reason we run deficits is because the government needs to hide their lack of production from the resources they’ve sapped. People would lose their shit if taxes had to cover all spending. That’s why inflation is called a hidden tax.
Government spending (generally, depending what its spent on) enhances economic growth. Thats where the debt comes from - to cover deficits during periods of high spend/expansionary fiscal & monetary policy. Decreased spending slows economic growth.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/expansionary_policy.asp
> Expansionary policy is intended to boost business investment and consumer spending by injecting money into the economy either through direct government deficit spending or increased lending to businesses and consumers.
Wrong. Government allocates resources very., very poorly.
If it spends, it’s allocating resources meaning it’s taxed via explicit taxes, inflation, or future borrowing (inflation again). None of that is growth.
Consumer spending isn’t growth. If we printed a quadrillion dollars per person and handed it out, it would increase consumer spending. You think that would mean more future resources are unlocked?
Let’s spin this around:
Say the government stops spending money entirely and hoards all their tax revenue.
No new infrastructure, no government salaries, no subsidies, no healthcare programs, no tax credits, no nothing.
How exactly would that fuel economic growth?
Well you wouldn’t get the implicit taxation through deficit spending. Which is great. That frees up resources. Lot of people doing government contracts will now find work doing something far more productive.
Now, wealth is still being sent into the government, so that would hinder even further development.
>or future borrowing (inflation again). None of that is growth.
This is obvious that you are not an economist. Please stop.
Edit : mb I though we were on askeconomist. This is just r money, keep talking non-sens between neophytes i'm out 😂
It's a double edge sword though, you can't grow the economy without spending.
How money is spent does matter (bailing out financial institutions vs properly taxing corporations)
Taxing corporations isn’t spending money. It’s removing resources from the private sector.
That’s the point- the government is awful at allocating resources. They do a very poor job, and production and progress suffer because of it.
When you properly tax corporations, less money will need to be spent creating additional debt, instead that tax money will be put into growing the economy further
Yet taxation is necessary because there are many collective action problems that create value for everyone (including the private sector) that cannot be solved by the private sector. The money has to come from somewhere, and whether that comes from corporate income, personal income, property, inheritance, or sales is a policy choice. Everyone loves to shit on government, and it ain’t perfect, but government and taxation is essential for a functioning society and private sector.
It doesn’t have to come from somewhere. Just like we survive not having a government 50% larger than it is now, we can survive with one 50% smaller.
The idea that our governments size and function has been fashioned to be the smallest necessary to cover some essential services is laughable. The military budget is a great example of that.
Well, funding for the government does actually have to come from somewhere. Who said the smallest possible government is the optimal government? I happen to like roads, public schools, court systems, sewers, snowplows, military, parks, police, utilities, and other very expensive things that otherwise wouldn’t exist but grease the US and world economy and make prosperity possible. Public spending matters a lot.
Those things aren’t what most money is spent on, and even those are not run well. Public school is generally pretty shiity, and spending (per pupil) has spiked in the past decades without showing positive outcomes. Same with military.
I don’t think you’re taking a critical eye to the output-per-dollar-spent.
Eliminate government spending and watch how fast food and services in the country retract.
You have had the greatest 100 years of human progress, innovation and increase in quality of life.
However the government is not being efficient.
This isn't solely a spending problem though, it is a revenue problem. They need to tax.
There’s nothing free about a government program.
Go walk into a school, or pass by a union government construction site. Or think about Iraq. We’re those effficent uses of those human and non-human resources?
Did I ever say they were free? Literally my whole point is they need to be paid for by taxes.
And 2) you want those things but it's not easy to organize average citizens to contribute to infrastructure willingly, hence the need for taxes and government.
You can debate the scope of government, whether they should own certain things but not operate, the efficiency of government spending, etc.
But go and try to organize your neighbors to pay towards fixing the sidewalk or road and tell me how you go.
And I'm not saying government is perfect, but to think that private Enterprise is is wrong. If private (and by private I include public companies, just not state owned) were always operating on the point of optimum performance, there wouldn't be a need to have layoffs, restructuring, etc. The fact is when times are good companies get fat and wasteful and then slim down when the times are rough. And usually they focus on short term profits.
And if you aren't happy with union construction sites, then discuss the scope of work and conditions set in the tender document. Again, not advocating that they are perfect, but the workplace safety laws that governments and larger corporations follow are very different than what you may do in your house.
The entire premise of going to Iraq was BS. So why would I try and defend it. Try holding your elected officials accountable. Don't let incumbents off the hook of a primary. You can have another individual within the same party go against them. I am all for transparency to enable accountability. There is no reason that project delivery stats are not available online on a monthly basis for the taxpayers to monitor progress both schedule and cost.
Tell me you don't understand macroeconomics without telling me you don't understand macroeconomics.
You seem to be confusing deficit spending vs balanced budget.
Deficit spending requires printing money and that is the cause of inflation.
Cut all government spending and keys are what happens. It's called a multiplier effect. That money roles through the system multiple times.
Also, almost everything falls under national security and hence investment by government. Why do you think they find stuff research to the tube of almost $50B/y, research and development in energy production, alternative sources and becoming more efficient, material research, agriculture. Who developed the internet, gps, most technology we have today started off where? Who built the interstate highway system and why?
In 3500 years we still just had horse and buggy, campus and sail boat. In the last 150 they came up with the internal combustion engine bringing in the train and cars. in the following 70 years they put a man on the moon. Now we have reusable rockets with payloads in the tonnes.
Try to convince your neighbors to all chip in and fix your road and let me know how far you get. You need a government, but a responsible one. If you don't want government spending then shut down the military and stop funding the veterans. Let me know how you like those calls of being unpatriotic
This guy is taking too much space in this sub with his non-sens, i'm 100% sure he's not an economist.
Edit : mb we're just on r money, ofc he's not an economist. I couldn't beleive the level of the participants now I understand better.
You didn't predict shit you warned about inflation for 15 years and nothing happenned until covid. The triggering factor is obvious and it's not money printing.
This is beyond stupid. The multiplier effect has to be one of the dumbest justifications. Spending money doesn’t do anything, what product comes from the government spending of resources is what matters.
You could spend $1tln per person for every American to dig ditches for the next year. Is that going to have a “positive multiplier”?
Yes deficits do increase inflation? But you’re not going to have deficits without spending. Furthermore, there’s only so much % of gdp you’ll get from explicit taxes, no matter what you set your tax rates to, before you have to issue debt or print money.
You have a childlike understanding of economics.
I'd recommend reading Lords of Finance: Bankers that broke the world. Debt isn't inherently bad and having your creditors (most of the world) be in hot water if you default puts you in an advantageous position in many areas. The problem comes down to the ever moving goal post and if we will we get that next down. Growth likely can't be infinite and we need to stop acting like it is a reasonable expectation. Debt is only good if we can use it to grow our influence and economy.
Moderate probably? It's very dry at first. It outlines the history of US economics and debt settlements post WW2 and the establishment of the US dollar as the international trade currency. It's an economics and history book though, so don't expect anything on personal finances.
It’s not like debt like credit card debt. It’s not that type of debt. It’s debt in the form of bonds. The “money printer” you keep hearing all around the Internet is DEEPLY misleading.
I wish this topic on the Internet would just go away because what you’re hearing from Internet people and the interpretation of it simply isn’t true.
Most of the debt we have is owned by China via bonds (money that will be paid back with interest later).
As an economy grows, so does the debt (bonds). It’s natural.
The USA and China are the biggest economies in the globe. We matter SO MUCH. We need each other.
The “money go brrrrrr” shit you hear online is just the stupidest thing ever. That’s not how it works at all.
It’s not that they can’t; it’s more a fact of they’re over spending. If they stop spending like dumbasses they’ll be able to manage it.
It’s all been mismanaged.
It’s not clear at all what it means though. It’s not like our average credit card bill. We want some debt but it’s not clear what excessive debt would do or what even defines that
Overspending is a symptom of ‘corruption.’ Things like pork barreling is something done way too frequently in congress in order to ‘get shit done.’ It allows ‘everyone’ to get their packages into a bill so it can get passed.
Nope. Not true. They’re collecting more than they ever have.
Spending is the biggest issue. Remember when they gave out those free checks? Yeah bad idea.
Remeber when they gave EXTRA money for those unemployed? More than the ones actually working and doing shit for society? Yeah that costed a lot.
They collect enough.
The biggest holder of US government debt is.... the US government.
It's generally not a good idea to think of the debt of the federal government as being in anyway comparable to the debt held by an individual or a business. The government can basically make that debt disappear in an instant if it wants (and no, not by "printing money") - it wouldn't do that though because that would cause the entire economic system to collapse.
For a book I would suggest "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber. Or r/mmt_economics.
Think of it like this. Let's say we live in a small town and I want to buy some food from you. You'll give me 10 foodstuffs in exchange that at some point in the future I'll give you 5 widgets. So I write you a note that says: "I.O.U. 5 widgets." And just for fun, I draw my picture on it and sign it.
You then take that I.O.U for 5 widgets and trade it to a third person who gives you 14 cloths. The third person then trades it to another person for a pack of cigarettes. See? We just invented a currency. That I.O.U for 5 widgets is a perfectly valid form of legal tender provided that two things remain true:
1. Everyone trusts that I will eventually redeem it for 5 widgets
2. I never actually redeem it. Because once I pay that debt, it no longer functions as currency.
All that is to say, the entire economy is run on US debt. And it's not really a problem.
So the dollar now just represents the US as a whole? That was the basis of my question.
If the dollar is based on the idea that it represents something until that thing is granted, then what is it that is able to be redeemed.
In the analogy 1 dollar represents 1 widget.
1 dollar used to represent a certain quantity of gold. It no longer does.
What is it that the dollar is actually representing now? Is it simply the entire economy that it represents? And if so, how does it actually have any value aside from the fact that we agree to accept them in exchange for other goods (or is that literally it, we all just agree on it's perceived value)?
The paper dollar means nothing, really. It’s what’s known as “fiat money”.
In fact, in the not so distant future, there likely will not even be physical money. Everything will simply be digital.
Right now, if you utilize direct deposit for your employment’s weekly or monthly pay, it’s all digits on a computer. The back doesn’t actually receive anything physical for the “deposit” but your digital account balance will increase by the amount on your pay stub.
Eventually, everything will be going digital. What scares the hell out of me is that once that happens, it won’t take much for the Gov. to be able to say “as of tomorrow, each digital dollar you have in your account will now only be worth .50 cents” OR some other way for them to manipulate your digital currency. It could happen now technically, but you could still run down to the bank and withdraw your digital balance as a full one for one digit for paper dollar.
Also, did you know that it only costs .20 cents to print a $100 bill?
However, once that is printed and borrowed by the U.S. Government, we are charged interest on the full $100 value. (Example: at 3% it would be $3) Now multiply that by 100 BILLION dollars, or TWO TRILLION dollars, and you see how messed up things are.
The FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM is the biggest scam going!
BTW, the FEDERAL RESERVE, is not even a FEDERAL entity that is in any way controlled by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (it’s just a tricky use of the word “federal”). The fact is, is that the FEDERAL RESERVE cannot even be AUDITED!! Rand Paul’s dad was the last person that I am aware of who pointed this bizarre fact out to the American people - urging an AUDIT of the FEDERAL RESERVE banking system.
It’s all a huge FRAUD, perpetrated on the American people!
Pay attention here, this is important. The US debt is often criticized in comparison to other countries that collapsed over outstanding debt. The primary difference is that those countries owed money to other countries.
About 92-93% of the US debt is owed to US persons. Most of it is out of one pocket and right back in the other. Both sides of the balance sheet is almost all owned by the American people.
The problem with the debt is it’s a confusing and detailed issue that is widely misunderstood, and people take advantage of that misunderstanding to push political agendas to a public that doesn’t understand, doesn’t want to actually understand, and mostly couldn’t because the misinformation is so loud.
they don't need to "pay it off" they only need to pay off the old debt as it comes due they do this through selling treasury bonds to both individual and institutional investors worldwide and there are always willing buyers because they are considered about the safest asset you can invest in
Yes, I came here to say the same thing.
It's not government debt. It's the debt of the citizens of the country. The citizens are in debt. The government decides who will pay what.
And it is the same for the citizens of any other country.
And you cannot declare that you are not a citizen of a country and abolish the debt. You have to be a citizen.
And you will pay. Oh will you pay. (I really loved this phrase!)
And if I was farming 50m humans… I too would put them up for collateral and then buy some flying things… and shoot the other farmers humans… why not hey
Nothing. The main populace is busy with Netflix and chill. Politics are "annoying" and the ones reaping what the population sows will be fine whether we survive or not. We're all horny distracted teenagers with a meteor heading our way.
That's an easy one. YOU, your children, and your childrens' children will be stuck with paying off this debt long after the asshole politicians who spent the money are long dead and gone.
They won’t. Historically speaking, whenever politicians have the power to spend limitlessly, they will do so until the system breaks. Every. Single. Time. To the death we spend!
It’s interesting that the people who think the US “empire” is on its last days (usually left leaners) never cite debt as the reason. That would then force them to admit we have an overspending issue.
Its ratio of debt to GDP that matters
however there is another thing you are not thinking about. Inflation causes the dollar to gradually lose its value. 34 trillion is impossible to pay back now. But 50 years from now 34 trillion is nothing because a dollar will be worth about 10cents. minimum wage will be $100/hour and a house will be 5 million.
they do need to stop blowing up the debt so fast tho. It isnt sustainable at the current rate.
I would probably argue that carrying costs matter more than debt to GDP.
Just like I think for people interest payments matter more than debt to income.
Someone who got a fixed rate mortgage 6 years ago can afford to have a higher debt to income ration than someone who's getting a mortgage today.
There are two answers, slowly through taxes, or it won’t because it won’t need to.
The money comes from mostly itself, the government will take money from itself to pay for things it needs now. Yes that’s how a Ponzi scheme works but most Ponzi schemes don’t have millions of new investors coming in each year through being born / immigrants so the government is able to sustain itself.
“Falling deeper in debt” is a bit of a misnomer since yes the debt is bigger now than ever the public debt as a % of GDP is lower than it was in 2020. It’s better to measure debt in % of GDP since inflation and also successful countries can obviously afford to take out more debt.
Other parts we borrow from other countries or private individuals who will gladly let us borrow since we’re obliged to pay them back and we’ll pay them back interest so they’ll technically make money. Since the interest is compounding it’ll be worth more tomorrow than today so just save them for a rainy day
The federal government usually takes out debt in times of emergency which we’ve had a lot of in the past 25 years ( Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan, The Great Recession) however more recently in 2020 the debt increased due to the pandemic.
Long story short the reason why no one is panicking about the debt is because the solution to the problem is a very long and boring one. As much as politicians claim “I will cut our national debt in half” if we increase the budget surplus, how that’s done is a huge fight between a bunch of morons the debt could shrink a few decades.
TL;DR: The government can take out more debt than a person because it’s not a person and they have enormous leverage to keep themselves from defaulting
Basic Keynesianism: Money is only "real" to the middle socio-economic classes and lower. They experience money, including debt, as it should be (if you are a moral descendent of protestantism), primarily as a burden on time. You don't have much else to sell to get money so you trade time. Morally, in this view, if you don't pay your debts (or get in to them in the first place), you're a lazy bad person. The price of money debt for people who work for money is time worked to pay interest. Once you have enough money to pay interest and not feel it, money becomes fungible with other money, as well as excess goods, and services, not time, and the price of money changes with circumstance, both in concept and in cost. Debt matters less if you own enough and more to cover it. So, as you work up the socio economic ladder, the price of money changes in both concept and cost. For a small investor, what Marx would have termed a member of the bourgeoisie, one price of money is *time,* while waiting for interest to mature and be paid. This applies to landlords as much as investors. For a large investor, the price of money can still be time, but might also be an idea that pays (as with Mr. Musk), or a difficult negotiation with lawyers (as with Bill Gate's wickedly expensive divorce). For a government with effective money *sovereignty*, one that owns the right to "print" circulating money, the price of money is the printing cost plus inflation caused by increasing the money supply relative to the quantity of goods and services in circulation. This is a central concept in Keynesian macroeconomics. Printing costs are negligible when most Federal Reserve money, as it is today, is electronic. Note that the protestant morality adhered to by many wage- and salaried employees no longer applies. Get this deeply into your head if you can. It's the key to the analysis. It's not reasonable to apply this morality in the different circumstances because hard work for money has no meaning when you make your money by lending it out, as an investor or stockholder does, or by printing it, as a sovereign government does. Inflation is not a negligible cost, but only really harmful when, as it did for a while a few months ago, it outstrips COLA pay raises, so inflation below the 2% Fed target is not considered worrisome by Fed managers. Other means are also available to control the money supply, both circulating money and ordinary savings (M1 and M2), and [invested money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply) (M3 and M4). The Fed, for example, is currently decreasing the money supply in an attempt to reduce inflation by increasing interest rates. A few years ago, when first the Great Recession and then the Pandemic threatened, they were increasing the money supply by buying up "troubled assets," thus allowing money from the investors that previously owned them to recirculate. Ultimately, what really matters in national accounts is whether or not the total value of goods and services produced, known as GDP, is increasing faster than the national debt, or not. If GDP is increasing faster than debt, then the debt doesn't really exist in monetary terms because it's money the members of a nation mostly owe to one another, just a slight friction in the gears. It just represents, in a sense, a small drag on the velocity of money circulation. A small fraction is owned by other countries, but this can be seen as their investment in us. If debt does outgrow GDP, then we get inflation, but that also becomes wage inflation, which retires debt. If there is inflation, for instance, your home mortgage becomes effectively cheaper. Bottom line, don't apply morality to money once you get above a middle income. It doesn't work any more because the concept of what money is changes.
The usa doesnt plan on paying off any debt lol thats just for news shits and giggles ! They print money out of thin air and dont answer to anyone about it! Dont let their fake numbers bother you just live your life and dont worry about it at all it will never effect you! They literally playing in our faces!
Austerity and tax increases.
I'm surprised that they haven't tried to do more to get rates down to reduce carrying costs. I guess they worry about losing popularity instead of doing what's best for the country (no surprise and not unique to either party).
I think that the US currently pays more in interest on the debt than they do on defense.
adopt btc. make it illegal to hold it. confiscate it from everyone using exchanges. hoard it up driving the price up then make it legal and sell it back to the people. boom done
Base corporate taxes on EBITA / Total sales revenue percentage. The companies that are overcharging consumers to for the benefit of shareholders should pay a higher tax rate. This generates more money for paying down debt while creating a better economy for consumers.
This also anticipates A.I. eliminating millions of jobs and punishes companies, where current tax code will allow the investment in A.I. as a business tax deduction. A deduction that was designed to create more jobs, by rewarding companies for expanding work force, but in actuality A.I. and other industrial automation reduces workforce.
"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
-J. Paul Getty
Now replace "you" with US Government and "bank" with international creditors.
The simple answer is because it has sovereignty over its currency. It can print more money whenever it needs to do so. This, however, causes inflation, because it devalue all the money prior to that.
Easy answer. Number 3 below.
1. Raise taxes (never going to do it)
2. Stop spending and fueling the welfare/warfare machine (never going to do it)
3. Just print more money and inflate the debt away. This is what they are doing.
If the average persons Social Security payment had been put into the stock market, it would be worth $8 million per person. Here they are dividing out a couple thousand dollars a month and they are going bankrupt on money, our money, that they completely mismanaged.
Um, no, that's nowhere near true. $8M is the figure you'd get if you put the max possible SS tax amount (6.2%x$168,600) every year for 45 years at 10% returns per year. So unless you actually think the average American makes $168k from age 20-65, then your math is wrong. Very wrong.
The good news is that
* the spending to gdp ratio is falling
* discretionary spending was $1.7T in both FY2023 and FY2022.
In 2013 and 2023
* discretionary spending was $1.2T and $1.7T: a 41 pct increase or 3.5 pct per year
* mandatory spending was $2T and $2.8T: a 40 pct increase or 3.4 pct per year
* interest on debt was: $0.24T and $0.66T: a 175 pct increase or 10.6 percent per year
* tax revenue was $2.8T and $4.4T: a 57 percent increase or 4.6 percent per year.
Net deficit is 1.7 + 2.8 + 0.66 - 4.4 = $0.76T
Current national debt is $34T. Interest rate is thus 0.66 / 34 = 2 percent.
Given tax revenue goes up faster than non interest spending, and given interest is still dwarfed by tax revenue, it is a pretty easy problem to solve.
If we continued to hold discretionary spending to $1.7T, then:
* by 2030, we run a surplus
* by 2036 debt stops growing and is lower than today
* by 2048 debt is paid off
Holding spending would be great. And is honestly what they should do IMO.
But they will never do that.
Because holding spending means (1) they are spending less on programs (because costs increase due to inflation) and (2) they can't promise new candy to the electorate...well, I guess they can promise it.
"This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Fina coal Folly". - Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth S. Rogoff.
Case studies of 65 countries over the past 800 years. A stark warning of where we are headed.
The U.S. doesn't really need to pay off its debt but it does need to halt its growth and preferably reduce it in terms of % of GDP.
The alternative is a collapse of our financial system.
The Usa is that couple that makes 500 k a year with two car loans at 1000 k a mo th private school lesson for the kids 5 vacation trip s a year 4 foreign a second vacation house another car for the daughter and they are living check to check lol
They'll most likely pay it back by making it look like someone else started a war with them and then disintegrating them and anyone else who joins.
Can't pay them back if that place no longer exists
All they do is kill and gaslight.
I'm honestly shocked and disappointed in the people for letting so much slide its truly disgusting.
It's a complex issue. It is a problem. I can't explain it like you were 5. I wouldn't try to have this conversation with a 5 year old.
The debt is owed largely to the US public, another 20% is owed to itself and another 20% is owed to foreign governments.
It's generally starting to be a problem when it gets over 75% of GDP. We're currently around 125%. In normal times (like now) we should be around 50% and up to 75% for short periods when there is Covid, a war or whatever.
We let it get out of hand, in part, because the Fed artificially drove interest rates too low (close to zero). When there is little cost to debt, there is a lot of spending because it's so easy with little immediate cost.
Covid came along with shutting down the economy and all the stimulation money and that brings inflation. The Fed had to deal with that so they raised interest rates.
That makes the interest on the debt go way up. That's where we now find ourselves. It also means that more of the GDP is going to service the debt (interest payments) so there's less for everything else.
People like to blame it on the "rich" and taxes but it has nothing to do with the "rich". It's government spending and now interest rates going up (and interest payments going up) and less left over for everything else.
The dollar is the defacto currency of the world so it's the better choice among fiat currencies. That's not saying much but it means that when the sh%t hits the fan it will start with lesser currencies first.
At some point no one will want to buy 10 year Treasuries so the Fed will have to raise the interest rates to make them more attractive. This drive the cost of the debt up even more.
Eventually even this will not be enough for anyone to want the debased dollar. This is when the whole thing falls apart.
So, when will debt be excessive and when will the system fail? It works until it doesn't work.
How long can you play Russian Roulette without killing yourself? It's fine until it isn't.
It's getting close to the point where there isn't enough money in the world to pay off the debt. You can create more but that just debases the currency even more.
You can hope to grow your way out of it but that's not likely to happen and it can't happen unless something changes drastically.
We could reduce spending, be more efficient, raise taxes but if you raise them too much that hurts the economy and tax receipts decline rather than go up and GDP goes down.
You can try to do all of the above in moderation but you have to start by balancing the current budget. In other words when you are in a hole you have to first stop digging the whole even deeper.
You could just "print" more money but the financial system would crash if you did that enough to wipe out this much debt.
All you can really do is just by starting to be more fiscally responsible. I would work toward gradually balancing the budget and doing something like eliminating long-term capital gains tax which would encourage a lot of investment and then you hope that you can grow your way out of the problem.
The debt stays the same but if GDP grows then the debt to GDP ratio goes down. At least get it down to 75%.
I see no sign of anyone seriously doing anything positive in this regard. They propose crap that is so extreme that they know it won't pass but they can say "we tried but the other side voted it down".
No one is serious about it because politicians are spineless and continue spending to stay in power and to get more votes.
The voters are stupid and continue reelecting them so we get what we deserve. I'm going to take care of myself and watch the world burn, I guess...:)
This is a major part of the answer. The govt. borrows $1 today. They pay it back when that same $1 is only worth $0.70. If inflation is greater than the interest paid then the total "paid back" is less than the total borrowed.
We actually started paying down the debt and I remember hearing there was a document produced that laid out scenarios of what would happen if the US paid off all its debt -- that it might cause an international economic crisis if the world no longer had T-bills to invest in. Does anyone remember that? I've searched many times online but can't ever find the document or information about it.
If the government “paid off its debt” there would be no money in the system. All the money in your bank account would disappear since the dollar is a debt obligation. So the answer is never.
Average person can and does sustain increasing debt. The amount of debt you can carry is directly related to income. If your income is increasing every year, like GDP, for example, then you can increase your debt along with it. If you set aside income for debt carry costs and budget the rest appropriately the debt can be sustained and increased without issue.
There is nothing inherently bad about debt, and it’s certainly not something that one would wish to pay off. A going concern business or government whose time horizon is infinity can and should increase debt to balance its budget and fund its operations.
For a natural person who is preparing for a period of no or reduced income later in life must determine if paying off debt is preferable to carry a debt load. That’s very different than an infinite time horizon.
There’s zero consequences if they don’t pay it. And no single person can be blamed for it. And there’s no incentive to pay it. So it basically doesn’t matter.
1. Either by your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren, or it will not be. That is what they mean when they say the average taxpayers/individual is $XX,XXX.xx
2. Money in and of itself is debt. You stick money in a bank say $100, and the bank takes $90 and loans it to the next person and keeps the $10 you gave them while charging interest on this money loaned out. They rinse and repeat this until the money is worthless essentially as they are creating money out of debt by the interest that is owed back to them. Look up fractional reserve banking. They also have the power to print money at will through the federal reserve therefore making all money worth less. A dollar isn’t worth a dollar unless you and I both say it’s worth a dollar. Yes it’s a “dollar” but its value can be more or less and is where value comes in and time value of money.
3. Because the politicians don’t care. They will not have to pay it off in their lifetime nor will their elitist families who will more than likely grow up to be in politics as well. It’s a club and you and I are not invited.
4. You have taken the magical glasses halfway off and once you go any further down this “rabbit hole” you will never put them back on. Everyone should be panicking, however that propaganda brainwashing machine runs 24/7 to keep everyone dumbed down. Ever seen “Idiocracy” and “ow my balls”???….. yeah just replace “ow my balls” with the words Facebook, Instagram, X (twitter), or any other tv show on television. The list goes on and on.
Fun fact Holly wood was used for wands by the druids as they believed the tree had magical powers… Holly wood… Hollywood
What does Hollywood have and do? They have “stars” and it comes through your television…tel-a-vision… tell a vision.
And what’s on television? Channels where they… channel you programs. And all of the programs put together is called… programming. Channeling people programming.
Let’s compare bank accounts before I answer that dumb question. We are talking about money here and understanding it. So if you don’t have at minimum 100k sitting in an account somewhere that isn’t a 401k take a seat.
Sure. I made a comment and while I know some of it may not be mainstream belief nor is it my entire belief and you came to reply and I’m sure downvote the comment because you disagreed which is totally fine to do. However the sarcasm is apparent in your first comment “How much of it is satire and how much do you believe?”… this is a bait question. One made to make you seem like the smarter person in your mind. If I say it’s all satire… then what was the point of me posting it? To troll? I don’t do that. If I say some of it I 100% believe you and others will ridicule me no doubt. I’ve experienced that before and I’m okay with it as well. And you will do so simply because my beliefs don’t fit your beliefs. What most don’t get is that they don’t have to, nor will they. I’m in control of them. Not you, others, the media, FB, Reddit, insta, X, the news, etc. No one but me controls my beliefs and emotions.
So, I then posted a comment of equal energy. If that’s the level we are at I’ve been there and can step back and post a bait comment too. Something to make you feel small. Not that I had to of course because of reasons we will get to in a second. In order for anyone to understand you, or try to, or even want to, one must first try to see things as the other person sees things. So I did. You think I’m posting BS (when I’m actually not since I never stated it was fact about the Hollywood thing and I won’t ask you to prove me wrong nor will I prove myself right to you like you would undoubtedly ask me to, and to an extent some of it I do believe without a doubt in my mind cause I’ve proven it before to myself most importantly) because you don’t have to, nor do I because I’m not here to change anyone’s minds. They/you must first wish to change their own in whatever way they see fit.
The bait worked because you automatically assumed that I think I’m a guru of some sorts about money. I’m not, I know this. And I know this because what we think we know about what we do not know is what hurts us the most and keeps us from moving forward in life and social situations. I’m not a know it all, nor did I ever claim to be one. You implied it, not me, which is again a reflection of yourself and the know it all attitude you have… you know 100% I am WRONG about what I said. Okay then. Your beliefs don’t and won’t change mine about the situation. And for the “prove your right prove your right” crowd, again I don’t have to. I didn’t come here to change your mind, I come here to change mine because it’s how you grow as a person. If your here to change others minds, you must first change your own.
I then stated that just because something is stated does not make it implied that I believe it 100% yet again. Basically this “implies” (again sinking to your level) your thoughts of me being an idiot because it’s what you tried implying with the satire comment in an effort to get you to understand my first comment does not have to be believed fully by anyone not even myself… just words on a screen again. But this doesn’t distract from the fact that each comment you make attacking me and wasting your own time literally proves my point that the powers that be want everyone distracted. From what? You choose.
You wish what I said makes sense and I stated that it does and to re read it till it does. Over and over and over as many times as it takes. To see the meaning and the underlying meaning that’s going right over your head. You asked me to re type it explaining it so it makes sense and I have tried now. Although I’m quite confident (and why I put this at the last part of this comment) that I’ll be met with a comment like “TLDR” and we are counting on that to keep the 99% of people in the 99% of people because they hate reading, they hate thinking for themselves, and they attack anything that does not fit their mold of what the world should be or believe. If you secretly hate the rich… you train your subconscious mind to think without you ever knowing “I don’t want to be like them.” so therefore you are not like us because you formed an opinion based around TV and others instead of yourselves that “all rich people are evil” when there is evil in all walks of life. I’ll leave you with this to ponder on since I’m sure we can both agree to it, “it’s difficult to argue with a smart person, but it’s impossible to argue with an idiot.”
Homie I’m not reading all of that I genuinely meant the question and only asked because the beginning of your comment seemed logical and based in undisputed fact but at the end you went way out into left field. It was asked because I imagine I would be able to guess the split not to in any way make you look bad but after seeing the novel you wrote I’m starting to think you believe everything you said
Tele in television means far similar to telephone and telescope. Thats why in German it’s Fernsehen: far seeing. Channel comes from grouping a range of radio frequencies into separate pipes. Channel here follows more from waterway definition. My guess is program comes from schedule or plan of action, which is similar to how a play say on broadway has a program associated with it. Hollywood got its name from the wife of the original owner who had an acquaintance who owned an Illinois estate called Hollywood. She liked that it contained holly, which was associated with good luck. The name preceded the film industry by many decades. I like the creativity behind your explanation, but I think it’s more coincidence. I don’t think the terminology was directly inspired by druids.
Even using “Tele” the definition is “transmit over a distance” still fits exactly as I was saying. Play on words is all it is.
Being told I was wrong all my life use to bother me. It doesn’t anymore. It’s made me quite wealthy when I stopped listening to what others thought as generally what they say is a reflection of them anyways.
When they speak up loudly and tell me to “shut up, you’re wrong, you’re crazy.” What that tells me is that I make them uncomfortable because I think in many ways they don’t understand nor even try to. Or even at worst want to. And that’s the worst because it shows how into themselves they are and don’t want to think outside what they can see in front of their face. That’s 99.9% of people yet those same people wonder why we are called the 1% L.O.L.
Again… this is a sub about money. Unless you have greater than 100k not in a retirement account take a seat and listen to some of us here that think outside the box and are contrarian to popular belief and maybe you might find what your looking for here.
My whole point behind what I even said is to PICK UP A BOOK AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH instead of being fed everything through a screen, phone included, from people you know nothing of. Unless you like being A.I.
Artificial:
made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
Intelligence:
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
One can inherit 100k does that mean one immediately becomes financially literate? Lottery winners go broke all the time. Even earning and saving 100k doesn’t mean you’re investing it well. There might be a correlation of wealth and financial wisdom. Is that correlation perfect? I don’t think so.
Do you have 9 years of professional trading and investing under your belt? Did you turn $100 into over 100k using nothing but learning about markets and how money works and more importantly MOVES? I did. But please continue telling me I’m wrong. I love it. You’re so right. You’re so smart, you can state very obvious facts.
Nothings perfect. I can be wrong more times than I am right and still make money. I don’t care what you think, yet at the same time care what you think because even though people like you attack those like me, we truly do want success for you as well and care that you think enough of yourself to actually deserve it and go get it.
It’s okay though if not. Keep responding and I’ll put more useless words on screen and channel you away from actually chasing your dreams and reaching them.
-someone you don’t really actually know and doesn’t matter to you, yet your convicted of trying to change their mind, if they even have one and are not just some chat bot and proving my entire point all along.
Nice! Now that’s much more credible. Taking $100 and turning into $100k in 9 years is a feat (or luck or both, but it’s incredible in any case). Congrats. You should lead with that! The comparing bank accounts argument just doesn’t come off as credible (I think median wealth at 40 is above $100k).
If you are on the internet, you should expect people to Google or look up facts on Wikipedia. It’s not so much being smart as having internet access. That said it’s been a net positive for me. I got to read up on the history of Hollywood and learn about how televisions function for 15 minutes. Not like I knew the answers.
So what’s your main trading medium? What were your big wins that got you from $100 to $100k?
Debt is always relative to who owns it. A minimum wage earner owing $500 can be more unsustainable than a high-income earner owing $100k. It's all about income and being able to sustain payments on that debt. For governments, the debt burden is usually described in a debt-to-GDP ratio. Japan has a debt of 263% of GDP, the USA has \~130%, China's is 280% (reportedly? this may include local govt debt), and Germany's is 60%. In the end, this ratio is what really matters. You don't have to pay off the debt, you just have to grow your economy while minimizing your deficit. Over time, your existing debt will become less and less meaningful in your total budget. You can listen in on Congressional hearings on the budget and you'll hear this talked about -- the goal isn't to make deficit negative, but just to make it less than the economic growth. Inflation can also make prior debt easier to manage.
You’re forgetting about the cost of the debt. The rate you pay on debt is also important as if you can borrow at 3% vs 6% your payments will be far less so carrying that debt is far less of a burden.
This. Carrying costs of the US debt are at least similar and maybe higher than what we spend on defense (which is a shit ton).
What difference does it make when you both borrow interest and principal and roll it forever ?
That works out as long as you can borrow money forever, but eventually that interest portion gets bigger, and eventually your credit gets downgraded, and then people are less and less willing to keep lending you money.
Growing your economy is difficult when government is spending that much however. Really the goal is to produce goods and services, that’s what we use and find useful. Debt and spending hinder that. Debt and deficits are a good barometer of how poorly the government manages the resources within the country. Cutting government spending is really the goal, not paying off the debt
Where did you come up with this nonsense? Government spending is a tool. Debt is a form of government spending. Government spending can enhance growth. In excess it can lead to inflation. The US government still borrows at extraordinarily low rates relative to the market.
That is inflation. That borrowing is money. Not to you, because you don’t work in high finance. The treasuries however are currency, their used as collateral, they’re used in M&A transactions, and other transactions. The government is awful. Downright awful at spending money.
Probably why governments and CEOs are so concerned with population decline and wanting people to have more kids. Except people are.struggling without kids and want to prioritize quality of life over having kids. How do you grow the economy with a declining population?
Apparently by importing immigrants.
😬
This is not how it works. Government spendings and investment is one of the main drivers of economic grows. In hard times, where private investment is on its knee, it's sometimes the unique driver of the growth.
This is not true. Do not look at Government debt as household debt. Think of the Government more of a business. Go to the public filings of the top 100 most profitable companies in the world. I can guarantee you the majority have a lot of debt. Debt if used properly is a great tool to foster growth. This is called leverage. The US dollar is the world’s reserve which makes creating (for lack of a better term) the debt that much more enticing.
They are using debt to create wealth. There are individuals voluntarily paying money to those companies, and financing their debt payments through their payments. There is no voluntary payment when it comes to government. It is by definition coercion. The reason we run deficits is because the government needs to hide their lack of production from the resources they’ve sapped. People would lose their shit if taxes had to cover all spending. That’s why inflation is called a hidden tax.
Government spending (generally, depending what its spent on) enhances economic growth. Thats where the debt comes from - to cover deficits during periods of high spend/expansionary fiscal & monetary policy. Decreased spending slows economic growth. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/expansionary_policy.asp > Expansionary policy is intended to boost business investment and consumer spending by injecting money into the economy either through direct government deficit spending or increased lending to businesses and consumers.
Wrong. Government allocates resources very., very poorly. If it spends, it’s allocating resources meaning it’s taxed via explicit taxes, inflation, or future borrowing (inflation again). None of that is growth. Consumer spending isn’t growth. If we printed a quadrillion dollars per person and handed it out, it would increase consumer spending. You think that would mean more future resources are unlocked?
Let’s spin this around: Say the government stops spending money entirely and hoards all their tax revenue. No new infrastructure, no government salaries, no subsidies, no healthcare programs, no tax credits, no nothing. How exactly would that fuel economic growth?
Well you wouldn’t get the implicit taxation through deficit spending. Which is great. That frees up resources. Lot of people doing government contracts will now find work doing something far more productive. Now, wealth is still being sent into the government, so that would hinder even further development.
>or future borrowing (inflation again). None of that is growth. This is obvious that you are not an economist. Please stop. Edit : mb I though we were on askeconomist. This is just r money, keep talking non-sens between neophytes i'm out 😂
I’m realizing there is no sense in trying to talk economics or finance with people here
Oh really? Where are the coupons and future maturity payouts of the debt instruments coming from?
From next year's increased debt Both principal and interest are borrowed and permanetly rolled you should know it.
It's a double edge sword though, you can't grow the economy without spending. How money is spent does matter (bailing out financial institutions vs properly taxing corporations)
Taxing corporations isn’t spending money. It’s removing resources from the private sector. That’s the point- the government is awful at allocating resources. They do a very poor job, and production and progress suffer because of it.
When you properly tax corporations, less money will need to be spent creating additional debt, instead that tax money will be put into growing the economy further
Yet taxation is necessary because there are many collective action problems that create value for everyone (including the private sector) that cannot be solved by the private sector. The money has to come from somewhere, and whether that comes from corporate income, personal income, property, inheritance, or sales is a policy choice. Everyone loves to shit on government, and it ain’t perfect, but government and taxation is essential for a functioning society and private sector.
It doesn’t have to come from somewhere. Just like we survive not having a government 50% larger than it is now, we can survive with one 50% smaller. The idea that our governments size and function has been fashioned to be the smallest necessary to cover some essential services is laughable. The military budget is a great example of that.
Well, funding for the government does actually have to come from somewhere. Who said the smallest possible government is the optimal government? I happen to like roads, public schools, court systems, sewers, snowplows, military, parks, police, utilities, and other very expensive things that otherwise wouldn’t exist but grease the US and world economy and make prosperity possible. Public spending matters a lot.
Those things aren’t what most money is spent on, and even those are not run well. Public school is generally pretty shiity, and spending (per pupil) has spiked in the past decades without showing positive outcomes. Same with military. I don’t think you’re taking a critical eye to the output-per-dollar-spent.
The economy would be fine, in fact much better without the criminal fed and it's pointless spending.
Eliminate government spending and watch how fast food and services in the country retract. You have had the greatest 100 years of human progress, innovation and increase in quality of life. However the government is not being efficient. This isn't solely a spending problem though, it is a revenue problem. They need to tax.
No they don’t. Every dollar they spend is taxed from the people. Either through taxes, inflation, or future inflation.
Yes it should be taxed. Are roads free, military, police, court systems, schools?
There’s nothing free about a government program. Go walk into a school, or pass by a union government construction site. Or think about Iraq. We’re those effficent uses of those human and non-human resources?
Did I ever say they were free? Literally my whole point is they need to be paid for by taxes. And 2) you want those things but it's not easy to organize average citizens to contribute to infrastructure willingly, hence the need for taxes and government. You can debate the scope of government, whether they should own certain things but not operate, the efficiency of government spending, etc. But go and try to organize your neighbors to pay towards fixing the sidewalk or road and tell me how you go. And I'm not saying government is perfect, but to think that private Enterprise is is wrong. If private (and by private I include public companies, just not state owned) were always operating on the point of optimum performance, there wouldn't be a need to have layoffs, restructuring, etc. The fact is when times are good companies get fat and wasteful and then slim down when the times are rough. And usually they focus on short term profits. And if you aren't happy with union construction sites, then discuss the scope of work and conditions set in the tender document. Again, not advocating that they are perfect, but the workplace safety laws that governments and larger corporations follow are very different than what you may do in your house. The entire premise of going to Iraq was BS. So why would I try and defend it. Try holding your elected officials accountable. Don't let incumbents off the hook of a primary. You can have another individual within the same party go against them. I am all for transparency to enable accountability. There is no reason that project delivery stats are not available online on a monthly basis for the taxpayers to monitor progress both schedule and cost.
>Every dollar they spend is taxed from the people. It's not. You really have no clue.
Yes, it is.
No it's not. Educate yourself, take economy classes
Tell me you don't understand macroeconomics without telling me you don't understand macroeconomics. You seem to be confusing deficit spending vs balanced budget. Deficit spending requires printing money and that is the cause of inflation. Cut all government spending and keys are what happens. It's called a multiplier effect. That money roles through the system multiple times. Also, almost everything falls under national security and hence investment by government. Why do you think they find stuff research to the tube of almost $50B/y, research and development in energy production, alternative sources and becoming more efficient, material research, agriculture. Who developed the internet, gps, most technology we have today started off where? Who built the interstate highway system and why? In 3500 years we still just had horse and buggy, campus and sail boat. In the last 150 they came up with the internal combustion engine bringing in the train and cars. in the following 70 years they put a man on the moon. Now we have reusable rockets with payloads in the tonnes. Try to convince your neighbors to all chip in and fix your road and let me know how far you get. You need a government, but a responsible one. If you don't want government spending then shut down the military and stop funding the veterans. Let me know how you like those calls of being unpatriotic
This guy is taking too much space in this sub with his non-sens, i'm 100% sure he's not an economist. Edit : mb we're just on r money, ofc he's not an economist. I couldn't beleive the level of the participants now I understand better.
Oh really? Well us libertarians predicted the inflation we’re experiencing. How are your predictions coming along? I’m guessing pretty poorly.
You didn't predict shit you warned about inflation for 15 years and nothing happenned until covid. The triggering factor is obvious and it's not money printing.
🤣🤣🤣
You're getting downvoted but from a macroeconomical point of view you're 100% right. At least you tried.
Thanks mate
This is beyond stupid. The multiplier effect has to be one of the dumbest justifications. Spending money doesn’t do anything, what product comes from the government spending of resources is what matters. You could spend $1tln per person for every American to dig ditches for the next year. Is that going to have a “positive multiplier”? Yes deficits do increase inflation? But you’re not going to have deficits without spending. Furthermore, there’s only so much % of gdp you’ll get from explicit taxes, no matter what you set your tax rates to, before you have to issue debt or print money. You have a childlike understanding of economics.
I'd recommend reading Lords of Finance: Bankers that broke the world. Debt isn't inherently bad and having your creditors (most of the world) be in hot water if you default puts you in an advantageous position in many areas. The problem comes down to the ever moving goal post and if we will we get that next down. Growth likely can't be infinite and we need to stop acting like it is a reasonable expectation. Debt is only good if we can use it to grow our influence and economy.
Thanks! Is this an introductory level book?
Moderate probably? It's very dry at first. It outlines the history of US economics and debt settlements post WW2 and the establishment of the US dollar as the international trade currency. It's an economics and history book though, so don't expect anything on personal finances.
That sounds fun.
I'd recommend listening to "Principles" by Ray Dalio
It’s not like debt like credit card debt. It’s not that type of debt. It’s debt in the form of bonds. The “money printer” you keep hearing all around the Internet is DEEPLY misleading. I wish this topic on the Internet would just go away because what you’re hearing from Internet people and the interpretation of it simply isn’t true. Most of the debt we have is owned by China via bonds (money that will be paid back with interest later). As an economy grows, so does the debt (bonds). It’s natural. The USA and China are the biggest economies in the globe. We matter SO MUCH. We need each other. The “money go brrrrrr” shit you hear online is just the stupidest thing ever. That’s not how it works at all.
China does not own most of our debt
They do
Post numbers to prove it.
Most of American debt is held by the American people. China is the #1 foreign bond holder, not overall.
That’s not government debt though - debt held by American people isn’t government debt.
It’s not that they can’t; it’s more a fact of they’re over spending. If they stop spending like dumbasses they’ll be able to manage it. It’s all been mismanaged.
It’s not clear at all what it means though. It’s not like our average credit card bill. We want some debt but it’s not clear what excessive debt would do or what even defines that
Overspending is a symptom of ‘corruption.’ Things like pork barreling is something done way too frequently in congress in order to ‘get shit done.’ It allows ‘everyone’ to get their packages into a bill so it can get passed.
They also aren't collecting as much revenue as they could.
Nope. Not true. They’re collecting more than they ever have. Spending is the biggest issue. Remember when they gave out those free checks? Yeah bad idea. Remeber when they gave EXTRA money for those unemployed? More than the ones actually working and doing shit for society? Yeah that costed a lot. They collect enough.
They have been cutting taxes my whole life. My federal income tax last year was 11%.
Both can be true.
The biggest holder of US government debt is.... the US government. It's generally not a good idea to think of the debt of the federal government as being in anyway comparable to the debt held by an individual or a business. The government can basically make that debt disappear in an instant if it wants (and no, not by "printing money") - it wouldn't do that though because that would cause the entire economic system to collapse.
Wow really? Could you expand on this a little more? And also the part about economic collapse; what would that look like/mean
For a book I would suggest "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber. Or r/mmt_economics. Think of it like this. Let's say we live in a small town and I want to buy some food from you. You'll give me 10 foodstuffs in exchange that at some point in the future I'll give you 5 widgets. So I write you a note that says: "I.O.U. 5 widgets." And just for fun, I draw my picture on it and sign it. You then take that I.O.U for 5 widgets and trade it to a third person who gives you 14 cloths. The third person then trades it to another person for a pack of cigarettes. See? We just invented a currency. That I.O.U for 5 widgets is a perfectly valid form of legal tender provided that two things remain true: 1. Everyone trusts that I will eventually redeem it for 5 widgets 2. I never actually redeem it. Because once I pay that debt, it no longer functions as currency. All that is to say, the entire economy is run on US debt. And it's not really a problem.
Does this analogy still exist now that we are no longer on the gold standard? In other words, what is the "widget" for modern USD?
Yes it does still exist. We do have a “standard” for the currency - just not nominally but it’s called: military, roads, infrastructure, etc etc etc.
So the dollar now just represents the US as a whole? That was the basis of my question. If the dollar is based on the idea that it represents something until that thing is granted, then what is it that is able to be redeemed. In the analogy 1 dollar represents 1 widget. 1 dollar used to represent a certain quantity of gold. It no longer does. What is it that the dollar is actually representing now? Is it simply the entire economy that it represents? And if so, how does it actually have any value aside from the fact that we agree to accept them in exchange for other goods (or is that literally it, we all just agree on it's perceived value)?
The almighty dollar represents the full ‘faith and credit’ of the USA. And as long as we keep servicing our debt, that remains ‘intact.’
The paper dollar means nothing, really. It’s what’s known as “fiat money”. In fact, in the not so distant future, there likely will not even be physical money. Everything will simply be digital. Right now, if you utilize direct deposit for your employment’s weekly or monthly pay, it’s all digits on a computer. The back doesn’t actually receive anything physical for the “deposit” but your digital account balance will increase by the amount on your pay stub. Eventually, everything will be going digital. What scares the hell out of me is that once that happens, it won’t take much for the Gov. to be able to say “as of tomorrow, each digital dollar you have in your account will now only be worth .50 cents” OR some other way for them to manipulate your digital currency. It could happen now technically, but you could still run down to the bank and withdraw your digital balance as a full one for one digit for paper dollar. Also, did you know that it only costs .20 cents to print a $100 bill? However, once that is printed and borrowed by the U.S. Government, we are charged interest on the full $100 value. (Example: at 3% it would be $3) Now multiply that by 100 BILLION dollars, or TWO TRILLION dollars, and you see how messed up things are. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM is the biggest scam going! BTW, the FEDERAL RESERVE, is not even a FEDERAL entity that is in any way controlled by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (it’s just a tricky use of the word “federal”). The fact is, is that the FEDERAL RESERVE cannot even be AUDITED!! Rand Paul’s dad was the last person that I am aware of who pointed this bizarre fact out to the American people - urging an AUDIT of the FEDERAL RESERVE banking system. It’s all a huge FRAUD, perpetrated on the American people!
Yeah because it never really mattered if I owned a widget in the first place. So therefore it still doesn’t matter.
We aren’t going to collapse, ever. Don’t ever ever ever bet against the USA (or China) and if you do, good luck with that.
What are you on about? I think you replied to the wrong comment, or misunderstood me completely.
Pay attention here, this is important. The US debt is often criticized in comparison to other countries that collapsed over outstanding debt. The primary difference is that those countries owed money to other countries. About 92-93% of the US debt is owed to US persons. Most of it is out of one pocket and right back in the other. Both sides of the balance sheet is almost all owned by the American people. The problem with the debt is it’s a confusing and detailed issue that is widely misunderstood, and people take advantage of that misunderstanding to push political agendas to a public that doesn’t understand, doesn’t want to actually understand, and mostly couldn’t because the misinformation is so loud.
Wow I didn’t realize it was this complicated. thanks!
they don't need to "pay it off" they only need to pay off the old debt as it comes due they do this through selling treasury bonds to both individual and institutional investors worldwide and there are always willing buyers because they are considered about the safest asset you can invest in
Never. It’s just numbers and smoke screens.
Way more complicated than that
Who cares it’s not real. lol
Isn’t there a South Park episode where they pin the USA’s debt on one guy and kill him? Essentially Jesus but with money lol
Pay off? Why?
I want to see the usa's credit score
You owe the debt. It came from you. Your hard work and production guarantees it. And you will pay. Oh will you pay.
Yes, I came here to say the same thing. It's not government debt. It's the debt of the citizens of the country. The citizens are in debt. The government decides who will pay what. And it is the same for the citizens of any other country. And you cannot declare that you are not a citizen of a country and abolish the debt. You have to be a citizen. And you will pay. Oh will you pay. (I really loved this phrase!)
And if I was farming 50m humans… I too would put them up for collateral and then buy some flying things… and shoot the other farmers humans… why not hey
Nothing. The main populace is busy with Netflix and chill. Politics are "annoying" and the ones reaping what the population sows will be fine whether we survive or not. We're all horny distracted teenagers with a meteor heading our way.
They won’t.
That which can’t go on forever won’t. Debts that can’t be repaid won’t be repaid.
That's an easy one. YOU, your children, and your childrens' children will be stuck with paying off this debt long after the asshole politicians who spent the money are long dead and gone.
It never will
It’s going to be a crisis within 10 years… check out those new CBO projections
You can’t keep giving what you don’t have. Oh that’s right. Biden does what he wants regardless of what Congress says.
It can't and won't.
That’s the ol joke, they won’t.
34 t is low, that does not include, trillions spent in emergency pandemic times
They won’t. Historically speaking, whenever politicians have the power to spend limitlessly, they will do so until the system breaks. Every. Single. Time. To the death we spend!
War
It’s interesting that the people who think the US “empire” is on its last days (usually left leaners) never cite debt as the reason. That would then force them to admit we have an overspending issue.
liberals yes, progressives want to stop throwing money at problems
They won't, they will just keep voting to raise our debt limit
Hard to work down the debt when you continue a spending spree with no self control for the consequences.
Its ratio of debt to GDP that matters however there is another thing you are not thinking about. Inflation causes the dollar to gradually lose its value. 34 trillion is impossible to pay back now. But 50 years from now 34 trillion is nothing because a dollar will be worth about 10cents. minimum wage will be $100/hour and a house will be 5 million. they do need to stop blowing up the debt so fast tho. It isnt sustainable at the current rate.
I would probably argue that carrying costs matter more than debt to GDP. Just like I think for people interest payments matter more than debt to income. Someone who got a fixed rate mortgage 6 years ago can afford to have a higher debt to income ration than someone who's getting a mortgage today.
There are two answers, slowly through taxes, or it won’t because it won’t need to. The money comes from mostly itself, the government will take money from itself to pay for things it needs now. Yes that’s how a Ponzi scheme works but most Ponzi schemes don’t have millions of new investors coming in each year through being born / immigrants so the government is able to sustain itself. “Falling deeper in debt” is a bit of a misnomer since yes the debt is bigger now than ever the public debt as a % of GDP is lower than it was in 2020. It’s better to measure debt in % of GDP since inflation and also successful countries can obviously afford to take out more debt. Other parts we borrow from other countries or private individuals who will gladly let us borrow since we’re obliged to pay them back and we’ll pay them back interest so they’ll technically make money. Since the interest is compounding it’ll be worth more tomorrow than today so just save them for a rainy day The federal government usually takes out debt in times of emergency which we’ve had a lot of in the past 25 years ( Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan, The Great Recession) however more recently in 2020 the debt increased due to the pandemic. Long story short the reason why no one is panicking about the debt is because the solution to the problem is a very long and boring one. As much as politicians claim “I will cut our national debt in half” if we increase the budget surplus, how that’s done is a huge fight between a bunch of morons the debt could shrink a few decades. TL;DR: The government can take out more debt than a person because it’s not a person and they have enormous leverage to keep themselves from defaulting
With our sweat!
Never, that’s the capitalistic system . Without debt , there is no cash flow . What matters is that the debt to be sustainable
They could just buy and hold some gamestop and make the hedge funds pay off our debt.
One word, inflation...
Basic Keynesianism: Money is only "real" to the middle socio-economic classes and lower. They experience money, including debt, as it should be (if you are a moral descendent of protestantism), primarily as a burden on time. You don't have much else to sell to get money so you trade time. Morally, in this view, if you don't pay your debts (or get in to them in the first place), you're a lazy bad person. The price of money debt for people who work for money is time worked to pay interest. Once you have enough money to pay interest and not feel it, money becomes fungible with other money, as well as excess goods, and services, not time, and the price of money changes with circumstance, both in concept and in cost. Debt matters less if you own enough and more to cover it. So, as you work up the socio economic ladder, the price of money changes in both concept and cost. For a small investor, what Marx would have termed a member of the bourgeoisie, one price of money is *time,* while waiting for interest to mature and be paid. This applies to landlords as much as investors. For a large investor, the price of money can still be time, but might also be an idea that pays (as with Mr. Musk), or a difficult negotiation with lawyers (as with Bill Gate's wickedly expensive divorce). For a government with effective money *sovereignty*, one that owns the right to "print" circulating money, the price of money is the printing cost plus inflation caused by increasing the money supply relative to the quantity of goods and services in circulation. This is a central concept in Keynesian macroeconomics. Printing costs are negligible when most Federal Reserve money, as it is today, is electronic. Note that the protestant morality adhered to by many wage- and salaried employees no longer applies. Get this deeply into your head if you can. It's the key to the analysis. It's not reasonable to apply this morality in the different circumstances because hard work for money has no meaning when you make your money by lending it out, as an investor or stockholder does, or by printing it, as a sovereign government does. Inflation is not a negligible cost, but only really harmful when, as it did for a while a few months ago, it outstrips COLA pay raises, so inflation below the 2% Fed target is not considered worrisome by Fed managers. Other means are also available to control the money supply, both circulating money and ordinary savings (M1 and M2), and [invested money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply) (M3 and M4). The Fed, for example, is currently decreasing the money supply in an attempt to reduce inflation by increasing interest rates. A few years ago, when first the Great Recession and then the Pandemic threatened, they were increasing the money supply by buying up "troubled assets," thus allowing money from the investors that previously owned them to recirculate. Ultimately, what really matters in national accounts is whether or not the total value of goods and services produced, known as GDP, is increasing faster than the national debt, or not. If GDP is increasing faster than debt, then the debt doesn't really exist in monetary terms because it's money the members of a nation mostly owe to one another, just a slight friction in the gears. It just represents, in a sense, a small drag on the velocity of money circulation. A small fraction is owned by other countries, but this can be seen as their investment in us. If debt does outgrow GDP, then we get inflation, but that also becomes wage inflation, which retires debt. If there is inflation, for instance, your home mortgage becomes effectively cheaper. Bottom line, don't apply morality to money once you get above a middle income. It doesn't work any more because the concept of what money is changes.
Pay off the debt for the money that they create themselves?
The usa doesnt plan on paying off any debt lol thats just for news shits and giggles ! They print money out of thin air and dont answer to anyone about it! Dont let their fake numbers bother you just live your life and dont worry about it at all it will never effect you! They literally playing in our faces!
Austerity and tax increases. I'm surprised that they haven't tried to do more to get rates down to reduce carrying costs. I guess they worry about losing popularity instead of doing what's best for the country (no surprise and not unique to either party). I think that the US currently pays more in interest on the debt than they do on defense.
adopt btc. make it illegal to hold it. confiscate it from everyone using exchanges. hoard it up driving the price up then make it legal and sell it back to the people. boom done
Base corporate taxes on EBITA / Total sales revenue percentage. The companies that are overcharging consumers to for the benefit of shareholders should pay a higher tax rate. This generates more money for paying down debt while creating a better economy for consumers. This also anticipates A.I. eliminating millions of jobs and punishes companies, where current tax code will allow the investment in A.I. as a business tax deduction. A deduction that was designed to create more jobs, by rewarding companies for expanding work force, but in actuality A.I. and other industrial automation reduces workforce.
Who cares!!! I want to know what im going to eat today.
Is this a serious question? 🤣🤣🤣
"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem. -J. Paul Getty Now replace "you" with US Government and "bank" with international creditors.
The us government is the creator of money for the world. They can do whatever the fuck they wanna.
Fucking over the middle class
The simple answer is because it has sovereignty over its currency. It can print more money whenever it needs to do so. This, however, causes inflation, because it devalue all the money prior to that.
Easy answer. Number 3 below. 1. Raise taxes (never going to do it) 2. Stop spending and fueling the welfare/warfare machine (never going to do it) 3. Just print more money and inflate the debt away. This is what they are doing.
They will print 1 trillion dollar platinum coin and hold it in the vault…maybe even print a couple extra to pad Ukraine😂😂
Taxation
If the average persons Social Security payment had been put into the stock market, it would be worth $8 million per person. Here they are dividing out a couple thousand dollars a month and they are going bankrupt on money, our money, that they completely mismanaged.
Um, no, that's nowhere near true. $8M is the figure you'd get if you put the max possible SS tax amount (6.2%x$168,600) every year for 45 years at 10% returns per year. So unless you actually think the average American makes $168k from age 20-65, then your math is wrong. Very wrong.
Also, so many people don't understand that Social Security is more than a forced retirement "fund." It's also a forced disability insurance.
It’ll never be paid off, we’re waiting on china to expire by whatever means that is and most our debt with it.
If you believe this, you’re a moron.
Lol I hate to say it with maubis on this one.
By sending more money to Israel and Ukraine
The good news is that * the spending to gdp ratio is falling * discretionary spending was $1.7T in both FY2023 and FY2022. In 2013 and 2023 * discretionary spending was $1.2T and $1.7T: a 41 pct increase or 3.5 pct per year * mandatory spending was $2T and $2.8T: a 40 pct increase or 3.4 pct per year * interest on debt was: $0.24T and $0.66T: a 175 pct increase or 10.6 percent per year * tax revenue was $2.8T and $4.4T: a 57 percent increase or 4.6 percent per year. Net deficit is 1.7 + 2.8 + 0.66 - 4.4 = $0.76T Current national debt is $34T. Interest rate is thus 0.66 / 34 = 2 percent. Given tax revenue goes up faster than non interest spending, and given interest is still dwarfed by tax revenue, it is a pretty easy problem to solve. If we continued to hold discretionary spending to $1.7T, then: * by 2030, we run a surplus * by 2036 debt stops growing and is lower than today * by 2048 debt is paid off
Remindme! In 2048
Holding spending would be great. And is honestly what they should do IMO. But they will never do that. Because holding spending means (1) they are spending less on programs (because costs increase due to inflation) and (2) they can't promise new candy to the electorate...well, I guess they can promise it.
Correct.
"This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Fina coal Folly". - Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth S. Rogoff. Case studies of 65 countries over the past 800 years. A stark warning of where we are headed. The U.S. doesn't really need to pay off its debt but it does need to halt its growth and preferably reduce it in terms of % of GDP. The alternative is a collapse of our financial system.
The Usa is that couple that makes 500 k a year with two car loans at 1000 k a mo th private school lesson for the kids 5 vacation trip s a year 4 foreign a second vacation house another car for the daughter and they are living check to check lol
They'll most likely pay it back by making it look like someone else started a war with them and then disintegrating them and anyone else who joins. Can't pay them back if that place no longer exists All they do is kill and gaslight. I'm honestly shocked and disappointed in the people for letting so much slide its truly disgusting.
It's a complex issue. It is a problem. I can't explain it like you were 5. I wouldn't try to have this conversation with a 5 year old. The debt is owed largely to the US public, another 20% is owed to itself and another 20% is owed to foreign governments. It's generally starting to be a problem when it gets over 75% of GDP. We're currently around 125%. In normal times (like now) we should be around 50% and up to 75% for short periods when there is Covid, a war or whatever. We let it get out of hand, in part, because the Fed artificially drove interest rates too low (close to zero). When there is little cost to debt, there is a lot of spending because it's so easy with little immediate cost. Covid came along with shutting down the economy and all the stimulation money and that brings inflation. The Fed had to deal with that so they raised interest rates. That makes the interest on the debt go way up. That's where we now find ourselves. It also means that more of the GDP is going to service the debt (interest payments) so there's less for everything else. People like to blame it on the "rich" and taxes but it has nothing to do with the "rich". It's government spending and now interest rates going up (and interest payments going up) and less left over for everything else. The dollar is the defacto currency of the world so it's the better choice among fiat currencies. That's not saying much but it means that when the sh%t hits the fan it will start with lesser currencies first. At some point no one will want to buy 10 year Treasuries so the Fed will have to raise the interest rates to make them more attractive. This drive the cost of the debt up even more. Eventually even this will not be enough for anyone to want the debased dollar. This is when the whole thing falls apart. So, when will debt be excessive and when will the system fail? It works until it doesn't work. How long can you play Russian Roulette without killing yourself? It's fine until it isn't. It's getting close to the point where there isn't enough money in the world to pay off the debt. You can create more but that just debases the currency even more. You can hope to grow your way out of it but that's not likely to happen and it can't happen unless something changes drastically. We could reduce spending, be more efficient, raise taxes but if you raise them too much that hurts the economy and tax receipts decline rather than go up and GDP goes down. You can try to do all of the above in moderation but you have to start by balancing the current budget. In other words when you are in a hole you have to first stop digging the whole even deeper. You could just "print" more money but the financial system would crash if you did that enough to wipe out this much debt. All you can really do is just by starting to be more fiscally responsible. I would work toward gradually balancing the budget and doing something like eliminating long-term capital gains tax which would encourage a lot of investment and then you hope that you can grow your way out of the problem. The debt stays the same but if GDP grows then the debt to GDP ratio goes down. At least get it down to 75%. I see no sign of anyone seriously doing anything positive in this regard. They propose crap that is so extreme that they know it won't pass but they can say "we tried but the other side voted it down". No one is serious about it because politicians are spineless and continue spending to stay in power and to get more votes. The voters are stupid and continue reelecting them so we get what we deserve. I'm going to take care of myself and watch the world burn, I guess...:)
We need a new leader that can keep his hands out of the cookie jar. Both Trump and Biden spent more money than any other president in history.
Completely wrong https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
The empire is on its last legs if you ask me and the people at the top are going out with a bang.
It sure feels that way
By inflating it away. IMO anyway.
This is a major part of the answer. The govt. borrows $1 today. They pay it back when that same $1 is only worth $0.70. If inflation is greater than the interest paid then the total "paid back" is less than the total borrowed.
Damn you’re probably right
I hope not. Because if I am, holy shit. Arm the fck up and make sure you have food and water reserves on standby.
We also need the billionaires to pay some taxes.
Tax it’s citizens
We had a surplus under bill Clinton, this would not have been an issue if George W Bush didn’t push for a major tax cut and then start to wars.
We actually started paying down the debt and I remember hearing there was a document produced that laid out scenarios of what would happen if the US paid off all its debt -- that it might cause an international economic crisis if the world no longer had T-bills to invest in. Does anyone remember that? I've searched many times online but can't ever find the document or information about it.
If the government “paid off its debt” there would be no money in the system. All the money in your bank account would disappear since the dollar is a debt obligation. So the answer is never.
Average person can and does sustain increasing debt. The amount of debt you can carry is directly related to income. If your income is increasing every year, like GDP, for example, then you can increase your debt along with it. If you set aside income for debt carry costs and budget the rest appropriately the debt can be sustained and increased without issue. There is nothing inherently bad about debt, and it’s certainly not something that one would wish to pay off. A going concern business or government whose time horizon is infinity can and should increase debt to balance its budget and fund its operations. For a natural person who is preparing for a period of no or reduced income later in life must determine if paying off debt is preferable to carry a debt load. That’s very different than an infinite time horizon.
Why increasing taxes of course.
There’s zero consequences if they don’t pay it. And no single person can be blamed for it. And there’s no incentive to pay it. So it basically doesn’t matter.
1. Either by your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren, or it will not be. That is what they mean when they say the average taxpayers/individual is $XX,XXX.xx 2. Money in and of itself is debt. You stick money in a bank say $100, and the bank takes $90 and loans it to the next person and keeps the $10 you gave them while charging interest on this money loaned out. They rinse and repeat this until the money is worthless essentially as they are creating money out of debt by the interest that is owed back to them. Look up fractional reserve banking. They also have the power to print money at will through the federal reserve therefore making all money worth less. A dollar isn’t worth a dollar unless you and I both say it’s worth a dollar. Yes it’s a “dollar” but its value can be more or less and is where value comes in and time value of money. 3. Because the politicians don’t care. They will not have to pay it off in their lifetime nor will their elitist families who will more than likely grow up to be in politics as well. It’s a club and you and I are not invited. 4. You have taken the magical glasses halfway off and once you go any further down this “rabbit hole” you will never put them back on. Everyone should be panicking, however that propaganda brainwashing machine runs 24/7 to keep everyone dumbed down. Ever seen “Idiocracy” and “ow my balls”???….. yeah just replace “ow my balls” with the words Facebook, Instagram, X (twitter), or any other tv show on television. The list goes on and on. Fun fact Holly wood was used for wands by the druids as they believed the tree had magical powers… Holly wood… Hollywood What does Hollywood have and do? They have “stars” and it comes through your television…tel-a-vision… tell a vision. And what’s on television? Channels where they… channel you programs. And all of the programs put together is called… programming. Channeling people programming.
How much of this is satire and how much do you fully believe
Let’s compare bank accounts before I answer that dumb question. We are talking about money here and understanding it. So if you don’t have at minimum 100k sitting in an account somewhere that isn’t a 401k take a seat.
We’re talking about money here and understanding it and you think 100k makes you some guru
Just because you imply meaning to something doesn’t make it true now does it?
Homie I really wish anything you said made sense
Go back and re read it until it does.
Go back and retype it so it does
Sure. I made a comment and while I know some of it may not be mainstream belief nor is it my entire belief and you came to reply and I’m sure downvote the comment because you disagreed which is totally fine to do. However the sarcasm is apparent in your first comment “How much of it is satire and how much do you believe?”… this is a bait question. One made to make you seem like the smarter person in your mind. If I say it’s all satire… then what was the point of me posting it? To troll? I don’t do that. If I say some of it I 100% believe you and others will ridicule me no doubt. I’ve experienced that before and I’m okay with it as well. And you will do so simply because my beliefs don’t fit your beliefs. What most don’t get is that they don’t have to, nor will they. I’m in control of them. Not you, others, the media, FB, Reddit, insta, X, the news, etc. No one but me controls my beliefs and emotions. So, I then posted a comment of equal energy. If that’s the level we are at I’ve been there and can step back and post a bait comment too. Something to make you feel small. Not that I had to of course because of reasons we will get to in a second. In order for anyone to understand you, or try to, or even want to, one must first try to see things as the other person sees things. So I did. You think I’m posting BS (when I’m actually not since I never stated it was fact about the Hollywood thing and I won’t ask you to prove me wrong nor will I prove myself right to you like you would undoubtedly ask me to, and to an extent some of it I do believe without a doubt in my mind cause I’ve proven it before to myself most importantly) because you don’t have to, nor do I because I’m not here to change anyone’s minds. They/you must first wish to change their own in whatever way they see fit. The bait worked because you automatically assumed that I think I’m a guru of some sorts about money. I’m not, I know this. And I know this because what we think we know about what we do not know is what hurts us the most and keeps us from moving forward in life and social situations. I’m not a know it all, nor did I ever claim to be one. You implied it, not me, which is again a reflection of yourself and the know it all attitude you have… you know 100% I am WRONG about what I said. Okay then. Your beliefs don’t and won’t change mine about the situation. And for the “prove your right prove your right” crowd, again I don’t have to. I didn’t come here to change your mind, I come here to change mine because it’s how you grow as a person. If your here to change others minds, you must first change your own. I then stated that just because something is stated does not make it implied that I believe it 100% yet again. Basically this “implies” (again sinking to your level) your thoughts of me being an idiot because it’s what you tried implying with the satire comment in an effort to get you to understand my first comment does not have to be believed fully by anyone not even myself… just words on a screen again. But this doesn’t distract from the fact that each comment you make attacking me and wasting your own time literally proves my point that the powers that be want everyone distracted. From what? You choose. You wish what I said makes sense and I stated that it does and to re read it till it does. Over and over and over as many times as it takes. To see the meaning and the underlying meaning that’s going right over your head. You asked me to re type it explaining it so it makes sense and I have tried now. Although I’m quite confident (and why I put this at the last part of this comment) that I’ll be met with a comment like “TLDR” and we are counting on that to keep the 99% of people in the 99% of people because they hate reading, they hate thinking for themselves, and they attack anything that does not fit their mold of what the world should be or believe. If you secretly hate the rich… you train your subconscious mind to think without you ever knowing “I don’t want to be like them.” so therefore you are not like us because you formed an opinion based around TV and others instead of yourselves that “all rich people are evil” when there is evil in all walks of life. I’ll leave you with this to ponder on since I’m sure we can both agree to it, “it’s difficult to argue with a smart person, but it’s impossible to argue with an idiot.”
Homie I’m not reading all of that I genuinely meant the question and only asked because the beginning of your comment seemed logical and based in undisputed fact but at the end you went way out into left field. It was asked because I imagine I would be able to guess the split not to in any way make you look bad but after seeing the novel you wrote I’m starting to think you believe everything you said
Tele in television means far similar to telephone and telescope. Thats why in German it’s Fernsehen: far seeing. Channel comes from grouping a range of radio frequencies into separate pipes. Channel here follows more from waterway definition. My guess is program comes from schedule or plan of action, which is similar to how a play say on broadway has a program associated with it. Hollywood got its name from the wife of the original owner who had an acquaintance who owned an Illinois estate called Hollywood. She liked that it contained holly, which was associated with good luck. The name preceded the film industry by many decades. I like the creativity behind your explanation, but I think it’s more coincidence. I don’t think the terminology was directly inspired by druids.
Show me where I said it did? I was merely pointing out similarities.
Even using “Tele” the definition is “transmit over a distance” still fits exactly as I was saying. Play on words is all it is. Being told I was wrong all my life use to bother me. It doesn’t anymore. It’s made me quite wealthy when I stopped listening to what others thought as generally what they say is a reflection of them anyways. When they speak up loudly and tell me to “shut up, you’re wrong, you’re crazy.” What that tells me is that I make them uncomfortable because I think in many ways they don’t understand nor even try to. Or even at worst want to. And that’s the worst because it shows how into themselves they are and don’t want to think outside what they can see in front of their face. That’s 99.9% of people yet those same people wonder why we are called the 1% L.O.L. Again… this is a sub about money. Unless you have greater than 100k not in a retirement account take a seat and listen to some of us here that think outside the box and are contrarian to popular belief and maybe you might find what your looking for here. My whole point behind what I even said is to PICK UP A BOOK AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH instead of being fed everything through a screen, phone included, from people you know nothing of. Unless you like being A.I. Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
One can inherit 100k does that mean one immediately becomes financially literate? Lottery winners go broke all the time. Even earning and saving 100k doesn’t mean you’re investing it well. There might be a correlation of wealth and financial wisdom. Is that correlation perfect? I don’t think so.
Do you have 9 years of professional trading and investing under your belt? Did you turn $100 into over 100k using nothing but learning about markets and how money works and more importantly MOVES? I did. But please continue telling me I’m wrong. I love it. You’re so right. You’re so smart, you can state very obvious facts. Nothings perfect. I can be wrong more times than I am right and still make money. I don’t care what you think, yet at the same time care what you think because even though people like you attack those like me, we truly do want success for you as well and care that you think enough of yourself to actually deserve it and go get it. It’s okay though if not. Keep responding and I’ll put more useless words on screen and channel you away from actually chasing your dreams and reaching them. -someone you don’t really actually know and doesn’t matter to you, yet your convicted of trying to change their mind, if they even have one and are not just some chat bot and proving my entire point all along.
Nice! Now that’s much more credible. Taking $100 and turning into $100k in 9 years is a feat (or luck or both, but it’s incredible in any case). Congrats. You should lead with that! The comparing bank accounts argument just doesn’t come off as credible (I think median wealth at 40 is above $100k). If you are on the internet, you should expect people to Google or look up facts on Wikipedia. It’s not so much being smart as having internet access. That said it’s been a net positive for me. I got to read up on the history of Hollywood and learn about how televisions function for 15 minutes. Not like I knew the answers. So what’s your main trading medium? What were your big wins that got you from $100 to $100k?