3 ms·

The odd thing is that the federal government's balance sheet does not have to balance, and thus no credible federal balance sheet exists. The total (accountin

The odd thing is that the federal government's balance sheet does not have to balance, and thus no credible federal balance sheet exists. The total (accounting, market, or replacement) value of all the nationally owned assets is not reported, nor is their annual depreciation. Thus, the net worth of the national government is largely unknown. That is good; if it were reported, many citizens might desire that the government be sold off and the proceeds distributed to the taxpayers as a dividend. Of course, it has already been sold off, but no one was paying attention. Would it be better if government had to report like a business (as government requires it to report), or if business got to report like the government, or if the reporting rules were just reversed for a while so each could understand the other's problems? I think Taleb is just playing games with us. He knows that modern civilization is not a clear-cut logical proposition, that maybe no one understands how it works and evolves, and perhaps that, whatever form it takes, one of its fundamental requirements is that we maintain an optimum level of confusion. He has found his niche revealing the peculiarities of engines of ignorance that run on knowledge as explained by, e.g., Fortune.

JoBrad 3y ago
Not sure I’m really following you. The assets of a government are primarily GDP and economy. Those figures are reported quite regularly in the US and many other countries.
- lucas_membrane 3y ago
  I'm talking about tangible non-financial assets -- e.g. hydrogen bombs, hospital beds in VA hospitals, US and interstate highways, national parks, national laboratories, etc. IIRC, state and local governments are required to either report the value of similar state-owned assets and recognize their depreciation as an expense when it occurs, or, in some cases, to maintain them so that they do not significantly depreciate. The federal government doesn't do that. That means that whenever federal borrowing (debt) increases, people somewhat inaccurately infer that the government is operating at a loss. Private firms can increase their borrowing while they are profitable, and many have done that to pay higher dividends or buy stock in themselves in relatively recent times. But the figures in the unified budget of the US government and its various related trust funds don't tell us much about the net costs and benefits of having a government or how much it is worth.

JoBrad 3y ago

Not sure I’m really following you. The assets of a government are primarily GDP and economy. Those figures are reported quite regularly in the US and many other countries.

lucas_membrane 3y ago
I'm talking about tangible non-financial assets -- e.g. hydrogen bombs, hospital beds in VA hospitals, US and interstate highways, national parks, national laboratories, etc. IIRC, state and local governments are required to either report the value of similar state-owned assets and recognize their depreciation as an expense when it occurs, or, in some cases, to maintain them so that they do not significantly depreciate. The federal government doesn't do that. That means that whenever federal borrowing (debt) increases, people somewhat inaccurately infer that the government is operating at a loss. Private firms can increase their borrowing while they are profitable, and many have done that to pay higher dividends or buy stock in themselves in relatively recent times. But the figures in the unified budget of the US government and its various related trust funds don't tell us much about the net costs and benefits of having a government or how much it is worth.