5 ms·

interesting, if not unsurprising. >That projection was made without including President Biden's proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus package this is, as the kids s

interesting, if not unsurprising. >That projection was made without including President Biden's proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus package this is, as the kids say, an oof. the more interesting question those graphs present to me is what happened in 2016-2018? why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down?

rayiner 6y ago
> the more interesting question those graphs present to me is what happened in 2016-2018? why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? The Trump economy.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Dead cat bounce - goosing the accelerator was going to catch up to him
  - rayiner 6y ago
    A lot of it I think was just trajectory. But I think deregulation (lowering costs of domestic production) + tariffs (raising costs of imports) is probably the right approach.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      I don't think it's tariffs. Most economists agree once you take into account retaliatory tariffs they're bad for the economy. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do them, it might be worth it to take a gdp hit to preserve certain types of jobs. Plus the trade deficit didn't really move. I doubt it's deregulation especially in the short-term. It takes a herculean amount of deregulation to move gdp, and most of the impact would happen over the long term. Like they say it takes a lot of Harbinger's triangles to fill an Okun gap. Honestly I think the Trump economy is mostly due to Trump yelling at the Fed to keep their foot on the gas. We had un/underemployment and he pushed them to lean a little harder on the accelerator.
      - laretluval 6y ago
        > Most economists agree once you take into account retaliatory tariffs they're bad for the economy. How much real predictive signal is there in economists' consensus?
pc86 6y ago
The stimulus plan is proposed, and until it's enacted it probably shouldn't be included. And it's barely 2.1% of global GDP so it's not exactly like it would make a huge impact to the numbers. It seems completely reasonable on both counts to keep it out. As 16-18, if debt increases and debt % of GDP decreases, the only thing that could cause that is GDP increasing more than debt.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > It seems completely reasonable on both counts to keep it out. Yes. I didnt mean to imply the article was wrong for omitting. however, USD being the global reserve makes it a little more relevant than other countries. > As 16-18, if debt increases and debt % of GDP decreases, the only thing that could cause that is GDP increasing more than debt. i wonder how much of this is obama policies and how much is trump policies. also im not sure debt is a fine-grained enough metric to be meaningful. some debt can drive the economy forward and some is rent-seeking wealth destruction.
NeutronStar 6y ago
> this is, as the kids say, an oof. 1.9T on top of 281T is barely a drop in the bucket. So now instead of 356% it's at 358.5% . Barely an oof.
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
Not really. That's about 10% of the current debt. Also, it's not a stimulus package. People need to stop calling it that. A stimulus is intended to get people spending money because they're all scared and keeping their money in savings. This is meant to keep people afloat because they have no income.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> the more interesting question those graphs present to me is what happened in 2016-2018? why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? GDP increase at a greater proportional rate than debt increase.
notahacker 6y ago
> why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? Because world GDP grew faster than world debt. The debt growth is also smaller than it appears from the graph (the y axis starts at 200trillion rather than zero)

rayiner 6y ago

> the more interesting question those graphs present to me is what happened in 2016-2018? why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? The Trump economy.

selimthegrim 6y ago
Dead cat bounce - goosing the accelerator was going to catch up to him
- rayiner 6y ago
  A lot of it I think was just trajectory. But I think deregulation (lowering costs of domestic production) + tariffs (raising costs of imports) is probably the right approach.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I don't think it's tariffs. Most economists agree once you take into account retaliatory tariffs they're bad for the economy. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do them, it might be worth it to take a gdp hit to preserve certain types of jobs. Plus the trade deficit didn't really move. I doubt it's deregulation especially in the short-term. It takes a herculean amount of deregulation to move gdp, and most of the impact would happen over the long term. Like they say it takes a lot of Harbinger's triangles to fill an Okun gap. Honestly I think the Trump economy is mostly due to Trump yelling at the Fed to keep their foot on the gas. We had un/underemployment and he pushed them to lean a little harder on the accelerator.
    - laretluval 6y ago
      > Most economists agree once you take into account retaliatory tariffs they're bad for the economy. How much real predictive signal is there in economists' consensus?

pc86 6y ago

The stimulus plan is proposed, and until it's enacted it probably shouldn't be included. And it's barely 2.1% of global GDP so it's not exactly like it would make a huge impact to the numbers. It seems completely reasonable on both counts to keep it out. As 16-18, if debt increases and debt % of GDP decreases, the only thing that could cause that is GDP increasing more than debt.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> It seems completely reasonable on both counts to keep it out. Yes. I didnt mean to imply the article was wrong for omitting. however, USD being the global reserve makes it a little more relevant than other countries. > As 16-18, if debt increases and debt % of GDP decreases, the only thing that could cause that is GDP increasing more than debt. i wonder how much of this is obama policies and how much is trump policies. also im not sure debt is a fine-grained enough metric to be meaningful. some debt can drive the economy forward and some is rent-seeking wealth destruction.

NeutronStar 6y ago

> this is, as the kids say, an oof. 1.9T on top of 281T is barely a drop in the bucket. So now instead of 356% it's at 358.5% . Barely an oof.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

Not really. That's about 10% of the current debt. Also, it's not a stimulus package. People need to stop calling it that. A stimulus is intended to get people spending money because they're all scared and keeping their money in savings. This is meant to keep people afloat because they have no income.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> the more interesting question those graphs present to me is what happened in 2016-2018? why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? GDP increase at a greater proportional rate than debt increase.

notahacker 6y ago

> why did debt skyrocket but debt% of gdp go down? Because world GDP grew faster than world debt. The debt growth is also smaller than it appears from the graph (the y axis starts at 200trillion rather than zero)