4 ms·

You appear to be misreading the chart, it is 4.5T to 9.95T. "T for trillion dollars" not "t for percentage". Considering 20 years of inflation yes, a doubling

You appear to be misreading the chart, it is 4.5T to 9.95T. "T for trillion dollars" not "t for percentage". Considering 20 years of inflation yes, a doubling in twenty years of a nominal cash record is trivial. GDP in real terms (inflation adjusted) doubled in the same timeframe. In other words: debt as percentage of GDP has done down. Also of note you claim "you see how debts were not paid" pointing to a point in the graph where debts _were being paid_, that is why the curve does down. When debts are repaid faster than issued then total debt reclines. To recap: everything you wrote was either factually wrong or a mis-understanding how to read a single variable graph. Please put more thought when attempting to nerd-snipe. There is no doomsday debt bubble, not based on these numbers.

reportgunner 7y ago
I might have, but nevertheless I was reacting to Chart from the article shows debt growing by 3.5% since turn of the century. You appear to be misreading the chart, it is 4.5T to 9.95T How did you conclude that it grew 3.5% when it's now doubled ?
- Danieru 7y ago
  Simple, 3.5% yearly for 20 years is near double. Also note how "growing" in English is a present tense verb. In English this implies a continuous motion. Were you trying the classic "pretend to mis-read then express outrage at your own misunderstanding" brand of nerd-sniping?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Please try to be nicer. As per the guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. and > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
    - Danieru 7y ago
      You are right I am sorry. My replies have been in annoyance. Several times these past few months my posts have been replied with low-effort "gotchas" and I am a bit low on low on patience for the nerd-sniping.
      - reportgunner 7y ago
        Let me apologize for my comments, I should have paid more attention to both the article and your comment. Now I see that we basically agree about the numbers, we just have a different opinion on the fact. They were not made in ill will, I was just trying to make a discussion. I agree that I could have toned it down on the loaded questions, I was a bit undercaffeinated this morning.
        Danieru 7y ago
        I happily accept your apology. Thank you for trying to open a discussion with me, I live talking about economics and finance. Let's start fresh and get to that discussion we both want. No problem of course if you disagree with me. To open the discussion my opinion is that this article is overstating the case for concern in corporate debt. The growth since 2000 is not significantly above a trend line which one might expect in a loow interest rate environment. For my part I did sell most of my stocks in the past few months and moved my families money into a form of real estate like real asset. I do think the markets are bubbly but journalists have been trying to pin a possible catalyst for a popping of said bubble. Corporate debt I argue would not be that cause. In fact one of the common complaints of the clo market is how junk bond issuing companies are able to reduce the number of covinents. This is both a testament to the strength of demand, but would also make it harder for the market to price correct, aka pop. I will offer up that the most likely cause of any popping would logically be China. Yet of course China's strong capital controls allow them great freedom in issuing stimulus without tanking trade balance. What would you like to discuss?
        reportgunner 7y ago
        Let me start off by saying that I'm not an expert in finance, but I'm sure you've already noticed that. The corner I'm coming from is the debt doubling. I know you mentioned GDP doubling as well, but I would be more surprised if the GDP hadn't double with growing debt. What seems alarming to me is the constant pace at which the debt is growing with no attempts to reverse it at all. What is your take on my humble observation ? Do you think that the debt not even touching the 5T mark after the 2009 crisis is healthy ?
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Perhaps for people in the know, this is obvious - but the term "yearly" or "year-over-year" would have been very handy if included in your original comment.

reportgunner 7y ago

I might have, but nevertheless I was reacting to Chart from the article shows debt growing by 3.5% since turn of the century. You appear to be misreading the chart, it is 4.5T to 9.95T How did you conclude that it grew 3.5% when it's now doubled ?

Danieru 7y ago
Simple, 3.5% yearly for 20 years is near double. Also note how "growing" in English is a present tense verb. In English this implies a continuous motion. Were you trying the classic "pretend to mis-read then express outrage at your own misunderstanding" brand of nerd-sniping?
- adrianN 7y ago
  Please try to be nicer. As per the guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. and > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - Danieru 7y ago
    You are right I am sorry. My replies have been in annoyance. Several times these past few months my posts have been replied with low-effort "gotchas" and I am a bit low on low on patience for the nerd-sniping.
    - reportgunner 7y ago
      Let me apologize for my comments, I should have paid more attention to both the article and your comment. Now I see that we basically agree about the numbers, we just have a different opinion on the fact. They were not made in ill will, I was just trying to make a discussion. I agree that I could have toned it down on the loaded questions, I was a bit undercaffeinated this morning.
      - Danieru 7y ago
        I happily accept your apology. Thank you for trying to open a discussion with me, I live talking about economics and finance. Let's start fresh and get to that discussion we both want. No problem of course if you disagree with me. To open the discussion my opinion is that this article is overstating the case for concern in corporate debt. The growth since 2000 is not significantly above a trend line which one might expect in a loow interest rate environment. For my part I did sell most of my stocks in the past few months and moved my families money into a form of real estate like real asset. I do think the markets are bubbly but journalists have been trying to pin a possible catalyst for a popping of said bubble. Corporate debt I argue would not be that cause. In fact one of the common complaints of the clo market is how junk bond issuing companies are able to reduce the number of covinents. This is both a testament to the strength of demand, but would also make it harder for the market to price correct, aka pop. I will offer up that the most likely cause of any popping would logically be China. Yet of course China's strong capital controls allow them great freedom in issuing stimulus without tanking trade balance. What would you like to discuss?
        reportgunner 7y ago
        Let me start off by saying that I'm not an expert in finance, but I'm sure you've already noticed that. The corner I'm coming from is the debt doubling. I know you mentioned GDP doubling as well, but I would be more surprised if the GDP hadn't double with growing debt. What seems alarming to me is the constant pace at which the debt is growing with no attempts to reverse it at all. What is your take on my humble observation ? Do you think that the debt not even touching the 5T mark after the 2009 crisis is healthy ?
- MiroF 7y ago
  Perhaps for people in the know, this is obvious - but the term "yearly" or "year-over-year" would have been very handy if included in your original comment.