4 ms·

How in the world can anyone believe that a country that adds O($trillion) in debts every year will leave its future generations better off than previous ones?

pharrington 3y ago
Our national debt goes almost entirely towards paying Americans. edit: Also, almost all modern money is debt. Printed currency is a tiny amount of the money in circulation. Nobody gets paid without debt. (at first I said "literally all" instead of "almost all")
- paulddraper 3y ago
  *some Americans
golergka 3y ago
That’s government, not country. And most of this debt is held by other branches of said government.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Edit: Do you feel your comment explains how/why this implies the debt is fine? I sure don't...
  - golergka 3y ago
    Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
    - system2 3y ago
      A little humor wouldn't hurt. HN is getting extremely stiff to the point that people's comments are being reported.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Assuming a society expects working populations to support non working populations, then the debt exists regardless of it being tallied on a balance sheet. The only options are to remove the assumption that working populations will provide for non working populations (this removes the debt), or to have a sufficient proportion of working to non working population (this allows the debt to be serviceable).
- somenameforme 3y ago
  This is inaccurate. [1] What you're referring to is called intragovernmental debt. And it makes up less than 25% of our debt. The overwhelming majority is publicly held. [1] - https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-de...
mistermann 3y ago
Terrible education and journalism would be one effective way to achieve that state.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Maybe because in the actual world, the debts of a government that has its own sovereign currency are not actually very much like the debts you may incur when buying a car or a house or using a credit card.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ipaddr 3y ago
  They are. Interest must be paid and that money could fund so much. Lowering your debit is important.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    The USA seems quite happy to spend freely on anything it (i.e. the current federal government) deems worthy of a few billion dollars. Wars, in particular, are spending goals that come with few, if anym limits. I see little evidence that interest payments on the debt prevent funding particular programs - that is a political decision that for better or worse exists outside the realities of federal tax revenues.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      The way the government 'prints money' is by issuing treasuries - give me $100 today and I'll give you $105 next year or whatever. The rates required to issue those treasuries, and the publics acceptance of such, is going to be a reflection of the perceived strength of your economy. US 30 year rates, which reflect long-term perceptions on the strength of an economy, are at highs not seen since the housing market crash. [1] When it becomes impossible for the government to print money without major consequences, it doesn't mean it's time to start cutting back on spending, rather at that point the entire economy would likely collapse in on itself in relatively short order. One can see economic issues coming from far away, but when they strike - the final collapse is often lightning quick. Again, see the housing market crash for an obvious example of such. There's also some interesting parallels and lessons one can take away from the Mexican peso crash, which was largely about 'creditors' losing faith in a currency. [2] [1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis
hiddencost 3y ago
By being a fiat currency.

pharrington 3y ago

Our national debt goes almost entirely towards paying Americans. edit: Also, almost all modern money is debt. Printed currency is a tiny amount of the money in circulation. Nobody gets paid without debt. (at first I said "literally all" instead of "almost all")

paulddraper 3y ago
*some Americans

golergka 3y ago

That’s government, not country. And most of this debt is held by other branches of said government.

dataflow 3y ago
Edit: Do you feel your comment explains how/why this implies the debt is fine? I sure don't...
- golergka 3y ago
  Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - system2 3y ago
    A little humor wouldn't hurt. HN is getting extremely stiff to the point that people's comments are being reported.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Assuming a society expects working populations to support non working populations, then the debt exists regardless of it being tallied on a balance sheet. The only options are to remove the assumption that working populations will provide for non working populations (this removes the debt), or to have a sufficient proportion of working to non working population (this allows the debt to be serviceable).
somenameforme 3y ago
This is inaccurate. [1] What you're referring to is called intragovernmental debt. And it makes up less than 25% of our debt. The overwhelming majority is publicly held. [1] - https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-de...

mistermann 3y ago

Terrible education and journalism would be one effective way to achieve that state.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

Maybe because in the actual world, the debts of a government that has its own sovereign currency are not actually very much like the debts you may incur when buying a car or a house or using a credit card.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 3y ago
They are. Interest must be paid and that money could fund so much. Lowering your debit is important.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  The USA seems quite happy to spend freely on anything it (i.e. the current federal government) deems worthy of a few billion dollars. Wars, in particular, are spending goals that come with few, if anym limits. I see little evidence that interest payments on the debt prevent funding particular programs - that is a political decision that for better or worse exists outside the realities of federal tax revenues.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    The way the government 'prints money' is by issuing treasuries - give me $100 today and I'll give you $105 next year or whatever. The rates required to issue those treasuries, and the publics acceptance of such, is going to be a reflection of the perceived strength of your economy. US 30 year rates, which reflect long-term perceptions on the strength of an economy, are at highs not seen since the housing market crash. [1] When it becomes impossible for the government to print money without major consequences, it doesn't mean it's time to start cutting back on spending, rather at that point the entire economy would likely collapse in on itself in relatively short order. One can see economic issues coming from far away, but when they strike - the final collapse is often lightning quick. Again, see the housing market crash for an obvious example of such. There's also some interesting parallels and lessons one can take away from the Mexican peso crash, which was largely about 'creditors' losing faith in a currency. [2] [1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind https://tradingeconomics.com/usgg30y:ind [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso_crisis

hiddencost 3y ago

By being a fiat currency.