4 ms·

Doesn't this depend heavily on inflation? With the ballooning US debt, how do people imagine the government will continue to pay interest without massive inflat

Doesn't this depend heavily on inflation? With the ballooning US debt, how do people imagine the government will continue to pay interest without massive inflation in a few decades?

the_real_cher 2y ago
I dont think people understand it or arent aware or are in blissful denial. Im guilty of this, just a few years ago I started researching it even though its been a problem for decades or more. The news media puts wars on the front page and the debt on the back page if its reported at all. In my opinion this one of the biggest existential threats to America and the main stream media isnt even raising any red flags.
ww520 2y ago
The 4% or 3% as OP put it withdrawal rate accounts for inflation.
diob 2y ago
Presumably their investments would inflate as well. Unfortunately, the asset owning class is protected by inflation in that way. It's the lower / middle class who have cash savings that get wrecked by inflation.
- rzmmm 2y ago
  Depends on the asset, but usually salaries follow inflation more closely than investments.
  - diob 2y ago
    This doesn't address what I said though. Salaries may follow, but their cash savings do not.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  usually inflation helps the lower class - this has been the case historically and also the case for the most recent inflation
  - diob 2y ago
    Data? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/04/08/how-inflation-benefits-the-wealthy-and-harms-the-working-class/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/04/08/how-inflat... Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. The only way it wouldn't be is if that "new money" actually entered their local economy, which I'd love to see.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > Data? Sure [0]. You can also look at historical US rebellions, such as Shays' rebellion - where a principle demand of the working class rebels was that the US government print more money. > Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very important - it raises their wages while reducing the value of savings & debt, which hurts people who have lots of savings and helps people who are living off of their wages. [0]: https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=wealth&wealthend=03012023&wealthfreq=monthly&wealthgroups=Middle%2040%25&wealthgroups=Top%2010%25&wealthgroups=Top%201%25&wealthgroups=Top%200.1%25&wealthgroups=Top%200.01%25&wealthgroups=Total&wealthgroups=Bottom%2050%25&wealthstart=01012020&wealthtype=wealth&wealthunit=Adults&wealthy=growth https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=wealth&wealthend=03012023...
      - diob 2y ago
        You think Shays' rebellion is relevant here? That is quite the reach. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31775/w31775.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31775/w317... There is an overwhelming amount of data pointing in the opposite direction. This is easier to answer through simple logic though. Do you think the ruling / wealthy class would allow inflation if it hurt them? Perhaps, but personally I find it a bit naive. Let's break down your claim though > Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very important - it raises their wages while reducing the value of savings & debt, which hurts people who have lots of savings and helps people who are living off of their wages. Reducing the value of debt is a real possible winner, but that helps the rich just as much. And the poor person's debt, believe it not, tends to be of high enough interest that inflation isn't going to help them as much as you claim. Especially since they are subject to variable interest rates more than most. Savings? Once again, this is cash for them, and for the wealthy it tends to be assets that are not harmed by inflation (either by growing with them or outpacing it). So let's get to the final claim. It raises their wages. Is that true? The wage is inflated, but their purchasing power doesn't actually improve. It tends to go down, as the things they spend their money on are, you guessed it, inflated. It's wild to think that inflation is helping folks at the bottom.
gotaran 2y ago
The 4% rule accounts for inflation. The stock market on an average gives you 7% a year in returns adjusted for inflation. The 4% gives you enough cushion in case of economic turmoil.
- the_real_cher 2y ago
  Yeah but have you seen the interest rate on the national deb and the amount the fed government is borrowing every year? The interest we pay on the debt has just passed defense spending this year as a percentage of the federal budget. I cant imagine how 4% inflation will continue to be the norm as the government has to print more and more money to pay for this stuff.
  - hparadiz 2y ago
    If China starts a war with Taiwan we're gonna be looking at WW2 level of taxation. Ordinance shortages are already here due to Ukraine.
    - the_real_cher 2y ago
      I mean most of our debt is to entities within the USA. Which means instead of taxing the wealthy were paying them for the privilege of using their money. So that could be a good thing. When the rich were taxed heavily post WW2 the US was a pretty great place to live if you were middle class. Not sure if that would work out still in a post-gold standard, modern uni-party ruling class USA where taxes may not be used efficiently. Even some rich people question how little taxes they pay.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The stock market on average has given you 7%. That may not be a safe assumption going forward - going far forward. I might live another 30 years. If you FIRE, you might live another 50. Will the stock market continue to yield 7% over the next 50 years? That's a larger assumption than I'm comfortable making.
generic92034 2y ago
The same as always? Pay old debt with new debt. Other countries might run into issues with exchange rates this way, but the status of the USD is dampening such effects.
- the_real_cher 2y ago
  how long can you do that for?
  - generic92034 2y ago
    Most countries in the West are doing that at least since WW2. To different degrees, though.
    - the_real_cher 2y ago
      > To different degrees, though. There's quantifiable data on this and it's looking problematic as of now.
- creer 2y ago
  Even assuming there are always people, institutions and countries eager to buy the new debt, the government must still pay the ongoing interest on the debt. The concern is when that interest becomes a significant part of the annual budget. Then there is no money left to pay for the essentials - like, /s - government workers' salaries and retirement and military.
  - generic92034 2y ago
    You can pay the ongoing interest with more debt. Sure, this will probably not work forever, not even for the USA and the special status its currency has. But "forever" is usually not a relevant concept for politicians.

Doesn't this depend heavily on inflation? With the ballooning US debt, how do people imagine the government will continue to pay interest without massive inflation in a few decades?

the_real_cher 2y ago

I dont think people understand it or arent aware or are in blissful denial. Im guilty of this, just a few years ago I started researching it even though its been a problem for decades or more. The news media puts wars on the front page and the debt on the back page if its reported at all. In my opinion this one of the biggest existential threats to America and the main stream media isnt even raising any red flags.

ww520 2y ago

The 4% or 3% as OP put it withdrawal rate accounts for inflation.

diob 2y ago

Presumably their investments would inflate as well. Unfortunately, the asset owning class is protected by inflation in that way. It's the lower / middle class who have cash savings that get wrecked by inflation.

rzmmm 2y ago
Depends on the asset, but usually salaries follow inflation more closely than investments.
- diob 2y ago
  This doesn't address what I said though. Salaries may follow, but their cash savings do not.
whimsicalism 2y ago
usually inflation helps the lower class - this has been the case historically and also the case for the most recent inflation
- diob 2y ago
  Data? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/04/08/how-inflation-benefits-the-wealthy-and-harms-the-working-class/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/04/08/how-inflat... Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. The only way it wouldn't be is if that "new money" actually entered their local economy, which I'd love to see.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > Data? Sure [0]. You can also look at historical US rebellions, such as Shays' rebellion - where a principle demand of the working class rebels was that the US government print more money. > Inflation is absolutely a way to steal the already meager savings of the working class. Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very important - it raises their wages while reducing the value of savings & debt, which hurts people who have lots of savings and helps people who are living off of their wages. [0]: https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=wealth&wealthend=03012023&wealthfreq=monthly&wealthgroups=Middle%2040%25&wealthgroups=Top%2010%25&wealthgroups=Top%201%25&wealthgroups=Top%200.1%25&wealthgroups=Top%200.01%25&wealthgroups=Total&wealthgroups=Bottom%2050%25&wealthstart=01012020&wealthtype=wealth&wealthunit=Adults&wealthy=growth https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=wealth&wealthend=03012023...
    - diob 2y ago
      You think Shays' rebellion is relevant here? That is quite the reach. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31775/w31775.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31775/w317... There is an overwhelming amount of data pointing in the opposite direction. This is easier to answer through simple logic though. Do you think the ruling / wealthy class would allow inflation if it hurt them? Perhaps, but personally I find it a bit naive. Let's break down your claim though > Exactly why inflation is generally beneficial to the working class, generally their savings are insignificant while their wages are very important - it raises their wages while reducing the value of savings & debt, which hurts people who have lots of savings and helps people who are living off of their wages. Reducing the value of debt is a real possible winner, but that helps the rich just as much. And the poor person's debt, believe it not, tends to be of high enough interest that inflation isn't going to help them as much as you claim. Especially since they are subject to variable interest rates more than most. Savings? Once again, this is cash for them, and for the wealthy it tends to be assets that are not harmed by inflation (either by growing with them or outpacing it). So let's get to the final claim. It raises their wages. Is that true? The wage is inflated, but their purchasing power doesn't actually improve. It tends to go down, as the things they spend their money on are, you guessed it, inflated. It's wild to think that inflation is helping folks at the bottom.

gotaran 2y ago

The 4% rule accounts for inflation. The stock market on an average gives you 7% a year in returns adjusted for inflation. The 4% gives you enough cushion in case of economic turmoil.

the_real_cher 2y ago
Yeah but have you seen the interest rate on the national deb and the amount the fed government is borrowing every year? The interest we pay on the debt has just passed defense spending this year as a percentage of the federal budget. I cant imagine how 4% inflation will continue to be the norm as the government has to print more and more money to pay for this stuff.
- hparadiz 2y ago
  If China starts a war with Taiwan we're gonna be looking at WW2 level of taxation. Ordinance shortages are already here due to Ukraine.
  - the_real_cher 2y ago
    I mean most of our debt is to entities within the USA. Which means instead of taxing the wealthy were paying them for the privilege of using their money. So that could be a good thing. When the rich were taxed heavily post WW2 the US was a pretty great place to live if you were middle class. Not sure if that would work out still in a post-gold standard, modern uni-party ruling class USA where taxes may not be used efficiently. Even some rich people question how little taxes they pay.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The stock market on average has given you 7%. That may not be a safe assumption going forward - going far forward. I might live another 30 years. If you FIRE, you might live another 50. Will the stock market continue to yield 7% over the next 50 years? That's a larger assumption than I'm comfortable making.

generic92034 2y ago

The same as always? Pay old debt with new debt. Other countries might run into issues with exchange rates this way, but the status of the USD is dampening such effects.

the_real_cher 2y ago
how long can you do that for?
- generic92034 2y ago
  Most countries in the West are doing that at least since WW2. To different degrees, though.
  - the_real_cher 2y ago
    > To different degrees, though. There's quantifiable data on this and it's looking problematic as of now.
creer 2y ago
Even assuming there are always people, institutions and countries eager to buy the new debt, the government must still pay the ongoing interest on the debt. The concern is when that interest becomes a significant part of the annual budget. Then there is no money left to pay for the essentials - like, /s - government workers' salaries and retirement and military.
- generic92034 2y ago
  You can pay the ongoing interest with more debt. Sure, this will probably not work forever, not even for the USA and the special status its currency has. But "forever" is usually not a relevant concept for politicians.