4 ms·
The US' national debt was 89% of GDP in 1950. Now it is 104%. [1] I somewhat agree with you (there was a long period in between when the debt-GDP % was much low
by eppsilon 8y ago
The US' national debt was 89% of GDP in 1950. Now it is 104%. [1] I somewhat agree with you (there was a long period in between when the debt-GDP % was much lower), but the current situation isn't as dire as you suggest.
1. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287 https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to...
- dbatten 8y agoWeren't there some expensive wars around that time? I think I'm recalling that correctly. Seriously, though, a fairer point of comparison might be the late '60s and early '70s - right when Boomers were entering adulthood. National debt as a percentage of GDP was in the 30s around then. Still, your response to the parent comment is still somewhat justified - yes, national debt is higher now, but it's not like it's orders of magnitude higher, right?
- eppsilon 8y agoYeah, it's not an unprecedented situation. What's concerning is that we have this level of debt after a period of relative peace and stability. (Though I vaguely recall there being some expensive wars recently too.)
- beefman 8y agoTo a first approximation, only foreign-held debt matters https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HBFIGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HBFIGDQ188S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Composition_of_U.S._Long-Term_Treasury_Debt_2000-2014.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Composition_of_U.S._Long-...
- will_brown 8y ago>but the current situation isn't as dire as you suggest. But I didn’t say it was dire, that’s you reading “dire” into facts and numbers, which should be telling.
- eppsilon 8y agoYou implied that millennials are screwed because boomers incurred too much debt. Sounds pretty dire to me.