How much debt is too much

[Bern80]

To start, I'm not a "lib". *I simply present facts and fundamental drawn from how the money supply functions. *If, in fact, they fail to support your own crap, that is because your a moron.

I have seen no demonstrated or deduced arguement that the $17 T debt is good or bad. *It is simply an accounting on the national books. *For every dollar of government debt, there is an equivalent dollar of private savings. *Additionally, the money supply exists in dollar for dollar balance with some matching debt. *So the question to be answered by you is, if not the government, then who should carry the debt? *Households? *Businesses? *some mix?

To say something is good or bad requires evidence. *So what is your evidence? *Or are you just gonna go with the magical "cuz I think so"?

Many would answer it's bad because if a busines or individual had the same proportion of debt to revenue, they would be in a bad place financially. A cycle like that for a private business or person is not sustainable. So the question back at you is why is it okay for a government to have that kind of debt, but not an individual or a business? To conclude it's not bad, as you seem to be, requires a major presumption and suspension of logic. It poses some really big questions. Like if the amount of debt we carry, no matter how dispratortionate to our revenue, doesn't matter, why do we have a budget? *

To answer your other questions, the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. Because they are the ones on the hook for it. It's bad because it is the result of expenditures a lot of people didn't ask for. There may be a dollar worth of assets or savings for every dollar of debt, but those are dollars the government would have to confiscate to actually pay it.

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm wrong and at the same time claim you don't know enough to give an informed answer to the question as to whether it's good or bad. And Red didn't ask if ALL debt was bad. He asked if the debt we currently have is bad. That would mean taking into account our debt vs. the government's revenue.

Secondly, I'm happy to learn. If someone can make a compelling argument that our debt to revenue is not really problematic, I'm all ears. So explain it to me as best you can; what is it about macro economics and the money supply that make the debt situation the government has uncomparable to a similar situation in a business or individual circumstance.

Next, if you view the question whether it is good or bad is meaningless, then your question whom should it reside with is equally meaningless. It isn't a question of morality. It IS debt that is ultimately going to be mostly the responsibility of the tax payers. As you so aptly pointed out, it's not a moral value question. It just is what it is.

As to my 'assumptions' you really started off on the wrong foot there. None of the economic axioms you chose to pepper your post within in the pathetic attempt to make yourself look smart disprove that our level of debt to revenue is unhealthy. Most are true obviously on our face. None of it changes the fact the if debt exists, someone owes.

 

[peach174]

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

 

[Bern80]

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem, but their ideology simply won't allow them to do anything about it. But according to ifitzme, apparently our level of debt isn't an issue. Something about macro economics and the money supply supposedly says while this would be a problem for everyone else, it isn't a problem when it's government debt. I am genuinely curious as to why that's the case.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

You expect toooo much..

I'm just being honest with you, most members simply don't read long posts..

 

[Redfish]

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

You expect toooo much..

I'm just being honest with you, most members simply don't read long posts..

sad but true. our liberal friends are not able to digest anything more complex than the latest talking point that they have received from their handlers. Its not necessary that they understand it, only that they can repeat it.

 

[itfitzme]

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

You expect toooo much..

I'm just being honest with you, most members simply don't read long posts..

sad but true. our liberal friends are not able to digest anything more complex than the latest talking point that they have received from their handlers. Its not necessary that they understand it, only that they can repeat it.

So your latest conservative talking point, that "liberals repeat talking points".... nice.

 

[itfitzme]

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem, but their ideology simply won't allow them to do anything about it. But according to ifitzme, apparently our level of debt isn't an issue. Something about macro economics and the money supply supposedly says while this would be a problem for everyone else, it isn't a problem when it's government debt. I am genuinely curious as to why that's the case.

Because there isn't any identifiable problem. If you can identify one, by all means present it. But is it entirely meaningless and lacking in any logic or reason to say that because it can't be proven it isn't a problem, then it must be a problem.

We can't show that a new automobile tire isn't a problem, but it isn't. We can show a flat tire is a problem, that is obvious and apparent and goes without saying.

It isn't a question of being "left" or "right". It is simply a demonstration of economics and accounting. Economics and accouting doesn't care what your opinion is, any more than physics cares what your opinion is.

"I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem" isn't what you are mistaken about. What you are mistaken about is that there is some unrealized problem when, in fact, you can't show one.

 

[itfitzme]

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

The reality is that the entire money supply exists because of debt. It is a simple balance sheet issue. It cannnot be $0.00. It simply doesn't work that way.

So the correct question then is, "whom should carry that debt?"

There are four basic categories, households, firms, financial markets, and government.

The problem I see is a simple lack of understanding of how the money supply works. It doesn't magically appear out of thin air. And you don't seem to be able to articulate the mechanism that you believe leads to the debt being a problem, let alone any actually real mechanism.

Perhaps the reason that "no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem" is because it is only a few in the republican party that are uneducated and uninformed enough to believe there is a problem.

Last I looked, mortgages, automobile loans, and business loans are not a problem. Indeed, they are the opposite of a problem. So, from the outset, specific examples of leverage demonstrate that the general question of the OP is simply meaningless.

I didn't say there isn't a problem. I'm open to any suggestion as to what this "problem" is but, so far, none has been presented.

Still, what is an identifiable problem is the "few in the republican party " that are simply clueless as to how things work and refuse to learn how they work. OMG, they might actually have to change their mind if they learn some facts.

 

[Bern80]

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem, but their ideology simply won't allow them to do anything about it. But according to ifitzme, apparently our level of debt isn't an issue. Something about macro economics and the money supply supposedly says while this would be a problem for everyone else, it isn't a problem when it's government debt. I am genuinely curious as to why that's the case.

Because there isn't any identifiable problem. If you can identify one, by all means present it. But is it entirely meaningless and lacking in any logic or reason to say that because it can't be proven it isn't a problem, then it must be a problem.

We can't show that a new automobile tire isn't a problem, but it isn't. We can show a flat tire is a problem, that is obvious and apparent and goes without saying.

It isn't a question of being "left" or "right". It is simply a demonstration of economics and accounting. Economics and accouting doesn't care what your opinion is, any more than physics cares what your opinion is.

"I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem" isn't what you are mistaken about. What you are mistaken about is that there is some unrealized problem when, in fact, you can't show one.

Can we agree first that for an individual or private business the proportion of debt to revenue, left unchanged, would be a problem?

 

[itfitzme]

Mb is 3,715.719 Billions of Dollars
M1 is 2,636.5 Billions of Dollars
M2 is 10,954.4 Billions of Dollars
MzM is about 12,000 Billions of Dollars

The debt held by the public is $11,980,978 Millions of Dollars
The debt held by the government is $4,800,000 Millions of Dollars.

The government owes $11,980,978 millions of dollars to individuals, banks, and firms.
The government owes $4,800,000 Millions of Dollars to itself.

The GDP is about $16 trillion.
The deficit is about 680 billion.

These are all really big numbers.

So, they are big....

But for every penny of debt owed, there is a penny of savings owned. That is how it works.

So, the real question is, who should hold that savings and who should hold that debt. Four choices, gov, households, firms, financial markets. And why?

 

[Bern80]

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.

That's the problem, too many in this nation think that Dr. Seuss books are too long to read.

We have 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities and rising every second and no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem.
Progressives in both parties don't want to even touch it, let alone try to reform any of the big entitlement programs.
Dem's just added millions to the Medicaid program that's going broke.
The vast majority has no clue as to what is happening, they don't want to be bothered about it or informed.

The reality is that the entire money supply exists because of debt. It is a simple balance sheet issue. It cannnot be $0.00. It simply doesn't work that way.

So the correct question then is, "whom should carry that debt?"

There are four basic categories, households, firms, financial markets, and government.

The problem I see is a simple lack of understanding of how the money supply works. It doesn't magically appear out of thin air. And you don't seem to be able to articulate the mechanism that you believe leads to the debt being a problem, let alone any actually real mechanism.

Perhaps the reason that "no one but a few in the republican party are trying to address this huge problem" is because it is only a few in the republican party that are uneducated and uninformed enough to believe there is a problem.

Last I looked, mortgages, automobile loans, and business loans are not a problem. Indeed, they are the opposite of a problem. So, from the outset, specific examples of leverage demonstrate that the general question of the OP is simply meaningless.

I didn't say there isn't a problem. I'm open to any suggestion as to what this "problem" is but, so far, none has been presented.

Still, what is an identifiable problem is the "few in the republican party " that are simply clueless as to how things work and refuse to learn how they work. OMG, they might actually have to change their mind if they learn some facts.

I don't believe even those few Republicans that think 'it' is a problem are referring to the fact that we have any debt at all is the 'it' we're talking about. Debt is not always a problem and is often a good thing. I'm aware of that. The question is how much debt is unhealthy. Earlier you spoke of working in current terms. Generally debt is okay as long current revenues exceed current expenses. When those things reverse and do so year in and year out to where you where your overall debt is always going up, I think that becomes a problem.

 

[kaz]

The title of the thread is backwards. Government debt gives government power over the economy. For liberals the question isn't how much is too much, the question is how much is enough.

 

[itfitzme]

I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem, but their ideology simply won't allow them to do anything about it. But according to ifitzme, apparently our level of debt isn't an issue. Something about macro economics and the money supply supposedly says while this would be a problem for everyone else, it isn't a problem when it's government debt. I am genuinely curious as to why that's the case.

Because there isn't any identifiable problem. If you can identify one, by all means present it. But is it entirely meaningless and lacking in any logic or reason to say that because it can't be proven it isn't a problem, then it must be a problem.

We can't show that a new automobile tire isn't a problem, but it isn't. We can show a flat tire is a problem, that is obvious and apparent and goes without saying.

It isn't a question of being "left" or "right". It is simply a demonstration of economics and accounting. Economics and accouting doesn't care what your opinion is, any more than physics cares what your opinion is.

"I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem" isn't what you are mistaken about. What you are mistaken about is that there is some unrealized problem when, in fact, you can't show one.

Can we agree first that for an individual or private business the proportion of debt to revenue, left unchanged, would be a problem?

No. Not without justification. Car loans, home mortgages, second, third, fourth mortgages. Mortgages on duplexes, fourplexes... Education loans... Businesses are typically leveraged. Commercial paper. Small business loans. Loans for the investment in capital equipment. That's how it works. As long at the return on investment exceeds the investment expense, it's not a problem. Loans are amortized... Capital equipment is depreciated. Capital equipment creates efficiency that amplifies the output of labor. Heck, even hedge funds are leveraged.

It is all about money creation. If money isn't created, there is no economy. Generalized and sweeping analogies are meaningless.

As long as income exceeds costs, it isn't a problem, it is required. (in competative markets, classical economics.) Debt to revenue isn't how cost benefit analysis works.

Besides, why are we even discussing individuals and private businesses? What is true of individuals and households isn't necessarily true of businesses. What is true of these isn't necessarily true of governments, isn't true of the macro economy.

 

[itfitzme]

Personnally, I believe that businesses should be carrying the major debt load, not individuals or gov. Passbook savings rates should be higher. Businesses should be borrowing from banks. Households should be earning interest on savings ahead of inflation.

But that isn't to say that Gov or individual debt is bad, just that my personal opinion is that I think businesses should be the major debt carriers followed by the govt. Private business is, after all, 80% of GDP. Gov is 20%.

Here's another number, Billions of Dollars in Total Consumer Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding

And what is interesting is that, right where it began to fall off...boom....recession.

As of 2013-08-01, $3020.7066 billons of dollars. That is $3 trillion.

Here is business debt (I think?)[1]

Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (TBSDODNS)

2013:Q3: 13,366.88 Billions of Dollars

That is $13 trillion.

Government surplus means that businesses and individuals do not have net savings. That seems to be less "good". I found this,

Government Debt and Deficits: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
-----
[1] The FRED series Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Total Business Sector is now known as Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability.

 

[Bern80]

Because there isn't any identifiable problem. If you can identify one, by all means present it. But is it entirely meaningless and lacking in any logic or reason to say that because it can't be proven it isn't a problem, then it must be a problem.

We can't show that a new automobile tire isn't a problem, but it isn't. We can show a flat tire is a problem, that is obvious and apparent and goes without saying.

It isn't a question of being "left" or "right". It is simply a demonstration of economics and accounting. Economics and accouting doesn't care what your opinion is, any more than physics cares what your opinion is.

"I guess I mistakenly thought that the left knows this is a problem" isn't what you are mistaken about. What you are mistaken about is that there is some unrealized problem when, in fact, you can't show one.

Can we agree first that for an individual or private business the proportion of debt to revenue, left unchanged, would be a problem?

No. Not without justification. Car loans, home mortgages, second, third, fourth mortgages. Mortgages on duplexes, fourplexes... Education loans... Businesses are typically leveraged. Commercial paper. Small business loans. Loans for the investment in capital equipment. That's how it works. As long at the return on investment exceeds the investment expense, it's not a problem. Loans are amortized... Capital equipment is depreciated. Capital equipment creates efficiency that amplifies the output of labor. Heck, even hedge funds are leveraged.

It is all about money creation. If money isn't created, there is no economy. Generalized and sweeping analogies are meaningless.

As long as income exceeds costs, it isn't a problem, it is required. (in competative markets, classical economics.) Debt to revenue isn't how cost benefit analysis works.

Besides, why are we even discussing individuals and private businesses? What is true of individuals and households isn't necessarily true of businesses. What is true of these isn't necessarily true of governments, isn't true of the macro economy.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but again I'm not talking about any debt, even if it's just a dollar, being bad. We're talking about how much is bad. I'm well aware that individuals and businesses go into debt for all those things. But it seems you do essentially agree that when costs exceed income for businesses and individuals, that's when debt becomes a problem. That's where we are with our government's finances. So why is that same scenario, costs exceeding revenue year and year out not a problem for them? I get that you think for every dollar of debt there exists equal dollars held by individuals and corporations. Since the government owes the money, but they don't have all of it to pay back how do they get there hands on those matching dollars?

 

[Bern80]

Personnally, I believe that businesses should be carrying the major debt load, not individuals or gov. Passbook savings rates should be higher. Businesses should be borrowing from banks. Households should be earning interest on savings ahead of inflation.

But that isn't to say that Gov or individual debt is bad, just that my personal opinion is that I think businesses should be the major debt carriers followed by the govt. Private business is, after all, 80% of GDP. Gov is 20%.

Here's another number, Billions of Dollars in Total Consumer Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding

And what is interesting is that, right where it began to fall off...boom....recession.

As of 2013-08-01, $3020.7066 billons of dollars. That is $3 trillion.

Here is business debt (I think?)[1]

Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (TBSDODNS)

2013:Q3: 13,366.88 Billions of Dollars

That is $13 trillion.

Government surplus means that businesses and individuals do not have net savings. That seems to be less "good". I found this,

Government Debt and Deficits: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
-----
[1] The FRED series Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Total Business Sector is now known as Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability.

Why should an individual or institution that had no say in how the debt was created, be responsible for it?

 

[itfitzme]

Personnally, I believe that businesses should be carrying the major debt load, not individuals or gov. Passbook savings rates should be higher. Businesses should be borrowing from banks. Households should be earning interest on savings ahead of inflation.

But that isn't to say that Gov or individual debt is bad, just that my personal opinion is that I think businesses should be the major debt carriers followed by the govt. Private business is, after all, 80% of GDP. Gov is 20%.

Here's another number, Billions of Dollars in Total Consumer Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding

And what is interesting is that, right where it began to fall off...boom....recession.

As of 2013-08-01, $3020.7066 billons of dollars. That is $3 trillion.

Here is business debt (I think?)[1]

Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (TBSDODNS)

2013:Q3: 13,366.88 Billions of Dollars

That is $13 trillion.

Government surplus means that businesses and individuals do not have net savings. That seems to be less "good". I found this,

Government Debt and Deficits: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
-----
[1] The FRED series Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Total Business Sector is now known as Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability.

Why should an individual or institution that had no say in how the debt was created, be responsible for it?

Oh, you don't like living in a country.... Yeah, I get it, you didn't ask to be born.. You need to take that one up with your mommy.

The Federal Debt is money owed to the public by the Federal government. Your credit cards are what is owed by you. Or do we want to say that your credit cards and mortgage payment is owed by the Federal government? We can go that rout. Perhaps you shouldn't saddle me with your mortgage payment as because the federal goverment owes it, I own it. The whole line of reasoning is ridiculousness. Collection agencies aren't gonna be calling you if the Fed gov doesn't pay on the t-bills. Ergo, it isn't your debt. You don't owe is and it is just dumb to imagine that you do.

You pay taxes.. That is gov receipts. That is what pays the t-bills. It isn't your money. You never had it in the first place.

In the mean time, you have no demonstrable evidence that the Federal debt and taxes, which you are whining about, has any impact on your standard of living. And, in fact, it doesn't.

When your tax rate is lowered, so is everyone elses. So prices adjust, as they always do. Inflation, and deflation, are not hard concepts and they are part of basic classical economic theory that no one disagrees with.

And, the standard of living is the result of a) employment level and b) efficiency of production. Any government consumption is a far cry from impacting how much food you get to eat, car you can buy, and home you can rent or buy. We can produce agricultural products with less than 10% of the pop and homes (inc apts) are oversupplied.

If you want more money, get a better job. Get a certificate or license in something. Get a college education. Start a business. But stop looking for "free" money. There isn't any. You actually have to work for it.

 

[Bern80]

Personnally, I believe that businesses should be carrying the major debt load, not individuals or gov. Passbook savings rates should be higher. Businesses should be borrowing from banks. Households should be earning interest on savings ahead of inflation.

But that isn't to say that Gov or individual debt is bad, just that my personal opinion is that I think businesses should be the major debt carriers followed by the govt. Private business is, after all, 80% of GDP. Gov is 20%.

Here's another number, Billions of Dollars in Total Consumer Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding

And what is interesting is that, right where it began to fall off...boom....recession.

As of 2013-08-01, $3020.7066 billons of dollars. That is $3 trillion.

Here is business debt (I think?)[1]

Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level (TBSDODNS)

2013:Q3: 13,366.88 Billions of Dollars

That is $13 trillion.

Government surplus means that businesses and individuals do not have net savings. That seems to be less "good". I found this,

Government Debt and Deficits: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
-----
[1] The FRED series Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Total Business Sector is now known as Nonfinancial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability.

Why should an individual or institution that had no say in how the debt was created, be responsible for it?

Oh, you don't like living in a country.... Yeah, I get it, you didn't ask to be born.. You need to take that one up with your mommy.

The Federal Debt is money owed to the public by the Federal government. Your credit cards are what is owed by you. Or do we want to say that your credit cards and mortgage payment is owed by the Federal government? We can go that rout. Perhaps you shouldn't saddle me with your mortgage payment as because the federal goverment owes it, I own it. The whole line of reasoning is ridiculousness. Collection agencies aren't gonna be calling you if the Fed gov doesn't pay on the t-bills. Ergo, it isn't your debt. You don't owe is and it is just dumb to imagine that you do.

You pay taxes.. That is gov receipts. That is what pays the t-bills. It isn't your money. You never had it in the first place.

In the mean time, you have no demonstrable evidence that the Federal debt and taxes, which you are whining about, has any impact on your standard of living. And, in fact, it doesn't.

When your tax rate is lowered, so is everyone elses. So prices adjust, as they always do. Inflation, and deflation, are not hard concepts and they are part of basic classical economic theory that no one disagrees with.

And, the standard of living is the result of a) employment level and b) efficiency of production. Any government consumption is a far cry from impacting how much food you get to eat, car you can buy, and home you can rent or buy. We can produce agricultural products with less than 10% of the pop and homes (inc apts) are oversupplied.

If you want more money, get a better job. Get a certificate or license in something. Get a college education. Start a business. But stop looking for "free" money. There isn't any. You actually have to work for it.

The money I earn from my employer was 'never mine to begin with'? What's mine as far as many goes is whatever my employer and I agree it is. An employer doesn't tack anything on to pay pay check 'that isn't really mine in taxes'. The government decides they get to take it. Further you automatically infer an extreme position of my part that I don't want to pay ANY taxes. That's a crock too. Thinking the government over spends and on things I don't neccessarily approve of is miles from having a problem with paying any taxes.

Demonstrable evidence that the debt has an impact on standard of living? The more debt our government takes on the less valuable our dollar gets. That is another irrefutable fact, seeing as you're so interested in those. If my dollar is worth less, it buys less. I have to earn more to buy the same amount. This is something you libs complain about constantly in debates about things like income inequality. The woes of the middle class who can't afford this or that when they used to be able to in the 'good 'ol days'.

You're right as far as the government's creditors not contacting me for the money they owe. They'll contact the government. Think a few fucking steps ahead and ask where the government is gonna turn for money it doesn't have. You're wrong about standard of living part way. Level of employment has very little bearing on standard of living. Just because everyone works doesn't mean they will have decent standard of living.

I really don't know what tree you're barking up with the last paragraph. I'm well aware of what is required to earn more money. The point is how much of it should government get and how the seems to be less and less tied to their financial obligations.

 

[itfitzme]

Why should an individual or institution that had no say in how the debt was created, be responsible for it?

Oh, you don't like living in a country.... Yeah, I get it, you didn't ask to be born.. You need to take that one up with your mommy.

The Federal Debt is money owed to the public by the Federal government. Your credit cards are what is owed by you. Or do we want to say that your credit cards and mortgage payment is owed by the Federal government? We can go that rout. Perhaps you shouldn't saddle me with your mortgage payment as because the federal goverment owes it, I own it. The whole line of reasoning is ridiculousness. Collection agencies aren't gonna be calling you if the Fed gov doesn't pay on the t-bills. Ergo, it isn't your debt. You don't owe is and it is just dumb to imagine that you do.

You pay taxes.. That is gov receipts. That is what pays the t-bills. It isn't your money. You never had it in the first place.

In the mean time, you have no demonstrable evidence that the Federal debt and taxes, which you are whining about, has any impact on your standard of living. And, in fact, it doesn't.

When your tax rate is lowered, so is everyone elses. So prices adjust, as they always do. Inflation, and deflation, are not hard concepts and they are part of basic classical economic theory that no one disagrees with.

And, the standard of living is the result of a) employment level and b) efficiency of production. Any government consumption is a far cry from impacting how much food you get to eat, car you can buy, and home you can rent or buy. We can produce agricultural products with less than 10% of the pop and homes (inc apts) are oversupplied.

If you want more money, get a better job. Get a certificate or license in something. Get a college education. Start a business. But stop looking for "free" money. There isn't any. You actually have to work for it.

it's posts like this where you really have to stop pretending you're not a flaming liberal. Posts like this pretty much remove all doubt. The money I earn from my employer was 'never mine to begin with'? There are bull shit notions more liberal than that. Further you automatically infer an extreme position of my part that I don't want to pay ANY taxes. That's a crock too. Thinking the government over spends and on things I don't neccessarily approve of is miles having a problem with paying any taxes.

Demonstrable evidence that the debt has an impact on standard of living? Are you living in the twilight zone? The more debt our government takes on the less valuable our dollar gets. That is another irrefutable fact, seeing as you're so interested in those. If my dollar is worth less, it buys less. I have to earn more to buy the same amount. This is something you libs complain about constantly in debates about things like income inequality. The woes of the middle class who can't afford this or that when they used to be able to in the 'good 'ol days'.

You're right as far as the government's creditors not contacting me for the money they owe. They'll contact the government. Think a few fucking steps ahead and ask where the government is gonna turn for money it doesn't have.

Your employer doesn't think so. I guarantee that he looks at those taxes and thinks that he is paying for them. If the darned taxes were lower, he'd have more profit.

Perhaps you are not getting the difference between real and nominal.

"The more debt our government takes on the less valuable our dollar gets."

How do you figure that? What, you read that on some conservative website and now anyone that knows differently must be a lib?

Do explain. Let me help.... NGDP = C + I + G + NX That is the same as MV=PQ.

The Fed Debt is just a number of a computer at the Federal Reserve bank. That is all. And, some one carries that debt. If not the gov then households, firms, or the financial markets. How is the government holding that debt somehow magically different?

The fact is, that "the less valueable our dollar gets." is a statement of nominal prices, inflation. But, inflation has nothing to do with real GDP. Inflation doesn't affect real prices or real income. It can't. The only thing that affects real wages and real prices is employment level and production efficiency. People make stuff, people consume stuff.

Here is what investopedia says, "Unlike nominal GDP, real GDP can account for changes in the price level, and provide a more accurate figure."

The problem is, your thinking of it as an open economy, a household. Inflation is the result of more money in the supply. More money in the supply is both higher prices and higher income. Period. Inflation is always due to more money and nothing else. It has no real effect. Yeah, dude, you earn more to have the same effect.... duh... now your getting it, inflation means more dollars. More dollars means higher prices and higher earnings.

Now, that isn't to say that your not getting screwed by your employer as a wage earner. But it isn't because of inflation, government debt, the money supply, or taxes. It is because the labor market is competative. That is how it works, supply and demand for labor. Fundamentally, wages are driven down to the minimum. That is supply and demand for labor. It's got nothing to do with gov debt or taxes.

They are simple monetaryist notions. They are the result of classical economics, you know, the ones that Republicans subscribe to.

And you haven't presented shit to even imply any notion of not disliking paying any taxes. You have said nothing about an appropriate level of spending, taxes, or debt.

I've repeatedly said, they simply don't matter, neither good or bad, it all depends on what the gov does, not what taxes if collects.

You have consistently avoided the original question, whom should carry that debt? You've consistently avoided the entire notion of investment and leverage. You've avoided any direction except that you don't like the debt and taxes.

The government doesn't have to turn to you for money. The federal government is the fundamental source of all money. The FED marks up reserves, private banks lend it out. That is the monetaryist point.

The FED could increase the money supply by $10,000 per person per week and then the IRS collect and extra $10,000 per person per week. Nothing would change. people would still make as many widgets. People would still buy as many widgets. Real dollar costs would still be exactly the same. The only change would be that prices would be up by that $10,000 per person per week and every person would earn that $10,000 per person per week.

Inflation isn't ever going to be zero. Debt in the economy is required. The gov can carry it. Businesses can carry it. Whatever. The money supply can be $5 trill, the money supply can be $10 trill. It's all the same. It doesn't affect your standard of living.

Other wise, we could just have the Fed and banks increase the money supply to $100 trillion and we'd all be millionairs. We'd be able to own mansions, drive luxury autos, all own a jet.... Oh, yeah, can't because we have to make all those mansions, autos, and jets. It takes labor and capital equipment to do that and all the money that can be printed won't change that.

Just because the things you believe are wrong, doesn't make anyone else a "liberal". MV=PQ and GDP=C+I+G+NX aren't "liberal" concepts, they are simply facts.

Here is real GDP per capita since 1950.

Here is the real dollar value of the government debt since forever.

Here is government revenues.

Do them per cap. Do them per worker. The same thing.

Where is that increase in debt or deficit causing the standard of living to go down? Oh, it isn't. It is a straight line to the top, punctuated by recessions. Standard of living has nothing to do with government debt or deficit.

It isn't there, not by any measure, not by any sound macroeconomic examination.

"Common sense" is wrong, as wrong with macro econ as it is with Relativistic Physics.

GTG

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know how to make it clearer....