3 ms·

Numerous good responses already, but basically the first thing you should do when you see anyone talk about The Debt is say "Okay, now do assets and revenues."

Numerous good responses already, but basically the first thing you should do when you see anyone talk about The Debt is say "Okay, now do assets and revenues." The second thing you should do is note that talk of "unfunded liabilities" is a 10 year old debunked talking point that invites you to imagine future spending over an infinite horizon without setting it side by side with future revenue. Nobody will ever give you a clear, simple explanation of why you should think that way. The third thing is take to heart some good points being raised here - debt is an investment in U.S. growth and not just a bad loan you are carrying around, the whole thing gets reframed if you consider what the U.S. is "worth", and probably many more after this post has been up for an hour or two. I think articles like this really highlight the value of a place like hackernews. The instinct to tear apart assumptions and unstated premises is at its best in response to articles like these, so I tend to upvote these items even though I disagree with their framing.

adventured 5y ago
And since that $146t figure is long-term obligations looking out decades, the US net worth also must be adjusted for future terms matching those forward decades. Even a modest growth rate applied to the US asset base over 30-40 years produces an extraordinary sum. As you note, the people that like to pretend the $146t is actual debt, go out of their way to evade such discussions. Since the peak of the real-estate bubble circa 2007 (right before household assets dropped), US household wealth has more than doubled, while household debt has remained very tame by comparison. The gain has roughly been $66t to ~$145t since 2007, in household assets. The debt increase has been $14.6t to ~$17.3t. So nearly $80 trillion in added wealth, stacked against $2.7 trillion in new debt, over ~14 years. That's beyond extraordinary. You can hear the skeptics though: yeah, but that's bubble wealth; ok, chop it in half, $40t stacked against $2.7t in new debt, still extraordinary. Over that time US households produced more new wealth than China did, to put that gain into perspective (and yes, most of it went to the top 1/3). Also interesting, the debt of US states has shown no consequential increase in those 14 years. The total debt of the states went from $3t to $3.23t. That's another great positive for the US when it comes to debt (stacked against the growing federal debt mess of course). States fortunately often have restrictions on deficits.

adventured 5y ago

And since that $146t figure is long-term obligations looking out decades, the US net worth also must be adjusted for future terms matching those forward decades. Even a modest growth rate applied to the US asset base over 30-40 years produces an extraordinary sum. As you note, the people that like to pretend the $146t is actual debt, go out of their way to evade such discussions. Since the peak of the real-estate bubble circa 2007 (right before household assets dropped), US household wealth has more than doubled, while household debt has remained very tame by comparison. The gain has roughly been $66t to ~$145t since 2007, in household assets. The debt increase has been $14.6t to ~$17.3t. So nearly $80 trillion in added wealth, stacked against $2.7 trillion in new debt, over ~14 years. That's beyond extraordinary. You can hear the skeptics though: yeah, but that's bubble wealth; ok, chop it in half, $40t stacked against $2.7t in new debt, still extraordinary. Over that time US households produced more new wealth than China did, to put that gain into perspective (and yes, most of it went to the top 1/3). Also interesting, the debt of US states has shown no consequential increase in those 14 years. The total debt of the states went from $3t to $3.23t. That's another great positive for the US when it comes to debt (stacked against the growing federal debt mess of course). States fortunately often have restrictions on deficits.