5 ms·
National debt in total numbers (dollars) is not only “not interesting”, it’s useless. In the same way that the debt of an individual is only interesting in rela
by hnarn 4y ago
National debt in total numbers (dollars) is not only “not interesting”, it’s useless. In the same way that the debt of an individual is only interesting in relation to their capacity to pay it back, so is national debt only interesting in relation to that country’s GDP.
Many facts can be true at once. Here’s a fact: the US national debt to GDP ratio is higher than any other point in 70 years, probably more.
Here’s another: the debt to GDP ratio of the US is still lower than Singapore, Italy, Portugal, and less than half of Japan.
This headline strikes me as dishonest and political to the extreme. It insinuates quite simply that the US is in trouble, which the facts do not support.
National debt is not a bad thing by definition. The US GDP is incomprehensibly large at somewhere around $23T for 2021.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoThe most important number is 0%. That is the fraction of the US debt that is not in US dollars.
- akvadrako 4y agoThe debt to GDP ratio is also not that interesting. What matters most is the market value of the debt, which includes risk and interest rate. This is why countries are (very slowly) moving to IPSAS, a newer accounting standard. This is because you can sell 10T of "good" debt for 5T of "bad" debt on the open market - the percent of GDP alone means little. See for example about Greece: https://www.ft.com/content/71e828b3-4da1-3b3d-a7ca-073337fa6a10 https://www.ft.com/content/71e828b3-4da1-3b3d-a7ca-073337fa6...
- yucky 4y ago>This headline strikes me as dishonest and political to the extreme. The headline is quite literally without bias. It is 100% unbiased and completely factual. The article may try to make (or not make) a big deal of what means but by definition you couldn't write a less biased headline.
- soupfordummies 4y agoSure, the sentence itself, "National debt surpasses $31T" is totally factual and without value. The act of it being a headline at ALL is where I think the OP is saying that it's dishonest/political. Choosing WHAT to report/highlight/headline can be just as much of a statement than the actual story itself. I've noticed this is especially pronounced with Fox News compared to the other 10 or so news sites I look at near-daily. An example of the point I'm trying to articulate is if I said to a friend "Hey, I lost my job today" they'd probably feel bad and buy me a beer but what if the real story was "I won the lottery and then I quit my job today" My first statement was factually correct but it wasn't the full story and it would connotate a much different meaning to the full scope of the day's events.
- throwoutway 4y agoI also disagree (with you). I’ve been keenly interested in the national debt and I found this headline fine. There was nothing political about it You probably hate Fox News so go yell at the NYT as well.. it says “ U.S. National Debt Tops $31 Trillion for First Time” which you should probably argue is more political than Fox News https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/business/national-debt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/business/national-debt.ht...
- yucky 4y agoWell yes, FOX/CNN/MSNBC etc. are all trash sources but that's not the claim that was made. And yes $31T in national debt is significant. It's not the only piece of information, but you can never put it all in a headline or you wouldn't need an article.
- soupfordummies 4y ago>>This headline strikes me as dishonest and political to the extreme. It's Fox News, they become more and more sensationalist and political-tabloid by the day
- throwoutway 4y agoGDP is not how debt is paid back. that number has some meaning in the grand scheme of things, but it’s the rates & Treasury and TAXES that are more meaningful. Eventually the US will need to stop growing by debt, or it will grow its debt to the point that it can only pay the interest not the principal