5 ms·

How do you think the US debt plays into that?

thaumaturgy 9y ago
For a slightly more local and recent example, the cost of California's 2017 wildfire season exceeded $9.4 billion (http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188377854.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188...), and became a serious political football between the country's wealthiest state and the federal government. The federal government additionally had hurricane and flood damage events, among others, totaling a record-breaking $306 billion for 2017 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historic-year https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017...). These numbers aren't going to trend downward anytime soon. A lot of the cost is absorbed through private means -- insurance, private funds and donations, and a lot of unfortunate people just end up eating the cost -- but if the federal government were to try to cover everything related to natural disasters, it would approximately rival the interest paid each year on federal debt. We are seeing now the beginnings of the effects that scientists started warning us about 30 years ago. They aren't going to go away. They're only going to get bigger and more expensive and, like frogs in boiling water, we'll continue debating the merits of climate science while paying for the destruction of entire communities and it won't even occur to us that the things are related. So as US deficits continue to increase and the tax-and-spend cycle continues through several different administrations, other programs are going to get cut back in an attempt to reduce debt (or to pay for whatever administration's favorite thing is today). People who don't live in coastal areas or areas prone to wildfire, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter weather, or other climate-related natural disasters, might think, hey, I'll be okay. But the money's gotta come out of somebody's pockets.
melling 9y ago
We’re going to be in no position to pay to “address” the problems. Relocating people, changing cities, etc will be expensive. Do we save the expensive real estate or buy people out?
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  The US having lots of national debt does not mean that we don't have money to spend. The large amount of debt we have is much more of an indication that people believe the US will be around for a very long time than an indication that we've over drawn or will have trouble raising more funds.
  - ianai 9y ago
    This also makes me wonder if the forces against our debt aren’t rooted in foreign lobbying/corruption or the government.
    - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
      Honestly it's a pretty easy jump to make given how individuals interact with debt. I wouldn't attribute it to malice or subversion unless there was stronger evidence.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Large amounts of debt definitely make it more likely that we'll have trouble raising more funds, because greater debt means greater risk of default, which means a higher risk premium. And right now we're near historic highs: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-t... This will surely be made worse in that a) we're moving out of a US-centric era and toward a more multipolar world, and b) recent US politics would make any serious lender wonder how likely they are to get paid back.
    - fineline 9y ago
      If that "debt" is denominated in USD, the US cannot default. Really what is national debt in a nation with soft (non-exchangeable for gold) sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt other than an increase in the money supply - or a commitment to make such increase when bonds mature?
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
If you have to pay a lot for food and shelter this month it helps if you're not already significantly in the hole?
- ggggtez 9y ago
  Your intuition based on your finances, does not apply at the scale of a country. Remember, they can just go to war to take what they want. It's not the same.
  - ianai 9y ago
    If anything, the debt solidifies the US position as the global currency standard. The US literally owes the world trillions of dollars. Exactly as if the rest of the world were requesting out currency for use.
    - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
      In the old joke when you owe the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem it's not noted that sometimes the bank decides not to let you owe it 2 million dollars as a way of mitigating the problem. At any rate the comment was regarding problems 20 years in the future. I don't know that the U.S will continue as the global currency standard for various reasons.
      - ianai 9y ago
        Unless oil is no longer the chief source of energy. Ultimately I think the US may do fine for itself so long as it protects its natural resources and researches (to ultimately switch to) alternative energy.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure I could steal food too, but it might not go as well as expected. And there is the problem of transporting one's ill-gotten gains. I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.

For a slightly more local and recent example, the cost of California's 2017 wildfire season exceeded $9.4 billion (http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188377854.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article188...), and became a serious political football between the country's wealthiest state and the federal government. The federal government additionally had hurricane and flood damage events, among others, totaling a record-breaking $306 billion for 2017 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historic-year https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2017...). These numbers aren't going to trend downward anytime soon. A lot of the cost is absorbed through private means -- insurance, private funds and donations, and a lot of unfortunate people just end up eating the cost -- but if the federal government were to try to cover everything related to natural disasters, it would approximately rival the interest paid each year on federal debt. We are seeing now the beginnings of the effects that scientists started warning us about 30 years ago. They aren't going to go away. They're only going to get bigger and more expensive and, like frogs in boiling water, we'll continue debating the merits of climate science while paying for the destruction of entire communities and it won't even occur to us that the things are related. So as US deficits continue to increase and the tax-and-spend cycle continues through several different administrations, other programs are going to get cut back in an attempt to reduce debt (or to pay for whatever administration's favorite thing is today). People who don't live in coastal areas or areas prone to wildfire, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter weather, or other climate-related natural disasters, might think, hey, I'll be okay. But the money's gotta come out of somebody's pockets.

melling 9y ago

We’re going to be in no position to pay to “address” the problems. Relocating people, changing cities, etc will be expensive. Do we save the expensive real estate or buy people out?

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
The US having lots of national debt does not mean that we don't have money to spend. The large amount of debt we have is much more of an indication that people believe the US will be around for a very long time than an indication that we've over drawn or will have trouble raising more funds.
- ianai 9y ago
  This also makes me wonder if the forces against our debt aren’t rooted in foreign lobbying/corruption or the government.
  - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
    Honestly it's a pretty easy jump to make given how individuals interact with debt. I wouldn't attribute it to malice or subversion unless there was stronger evidence.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Large amounts of debt definitely make it more likely that we'll have trouble raising more funds, because greater debt means greater risk of default, which means a higher risk premium. And right now we're near historic highs: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-t... This will surely be made worse in that a) we're moving out of a US-centric era and toward a more multipolar world, and b) recent US politics would make any serious lender wonder how likely they are to get paid back.
  - fineline 9y ago
    If that "debt" is denominated in USD, the US cannot default. Really what is national debt in a nation with soft (non-exchangeable for gold) sovereign currency and limited foreign-denominated debt other than an increase in the money supply - or a commitment to make such increase when bonds mature?

bryanrasmussen 9y ago

If you have to pay a lot for food and shelter this month it helps if you're not already significantly in the hole?

ggggtez 9y ago
Your intuition based on your finances, does not apply at the scale of a country. Remember, they can just go to war to take what they want. It's not the same.
- ianai 9y ago
  If anything, the debt solidifies the US position as the global currency standard. The US literally owes the world trillions of dollars. Exactly as if the rest of the world were requesting out currency for use.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    In the old joke when you owe the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem it's not noted that sometimes the bank decides not to let you owe it 2 million dollars as a way of mitigating the problem. At any rate the comment was regarding problems 20 years in the future. I don't know that the U.S will continue as the global currency standard for various reasons.
    - ianai 9y ago
      Unless oil is no longer the chief source of energy. Ultimately I think the US may do fine for itself so long as it protects its natural resources and researches (to ultimately switch to) alternative energy.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure I could steal food too, but it might not go as well as expected. And there is the problem of transporting one's ill-gotten gains. I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.