4 ms·

For the visually-inclined, a graph of debt as a proportion of GDP [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA

by Terr_ 1y ago

For the visually-inclined, a graph of debt as a proportion of GDP [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S Of course, this doesn't show projections for what the future debt will become after the Republican's "BBB" package from a few months ago. [0] Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling.

the_real_cher 1y ago
What a cool graph. Interesting to see the issues that get the ire of the current administration like food stamps and education and foreign aid are minuscule line items on that visualization.
emchammer 1y ago
It looks like it was under control for a while following World War II, but then from the early 1980s, it's hard for me not correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph with presidential party.
- secabeen 1y ago
  What do you specifically see? I see two big increases in debt, both due to shocks (the 08 financial crisis, and the pandemic; one under Obama, and one under Trump.). Pre 2008, it does look like moderate increases under Reagan/Bush1 and Bush 2, and flat to decrease under Clinton, is that what you mean?
  - emchammer 1y ago
    Yes, that's roughly what I see. The bottom of the Y axis on this graph is 30% which can be a little deceptive. It looks to me like Clinton and Obama had a terrible challenge in bringing this under control following the early 1980s and the 2008 financial crises and they did what they could, and then there is also Reaganomics. It just looks so hopeless because this figure is as high as it was following the war. Now Biff Tannen's in the White House, and he'll be knocking down walls. I don't think the system was meant to handle human greed on this scale.
    - rbanffy 1y ago
      > I don't think the system was meant to handle human greed on this scale. It was held together by decorum. There is none left.
  - etchalon 1y ago
    The 2008 crisis happened under Bush, not Obama. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, 2009.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      Not only was Obama not inaugurated until 2009, but the Great Recession began in 2007, so tying it to Obama because it is popularly associated with 2008 and Obama was elected towards the end of that year is...doubly wrong.
      - Terr_ 1y ago
        I'm also certain some folks believe Biden was President during the start of COVID-19 in the US too. (Jan 2020.) It seems to be a pattern, where a disturbingly-large minority of people remember nothing but the year-number of an election (e.g. "2008") and never account for how voting was at the end of that year and the voting-result only takes effect the next (odd-numbered) year. Oh, there's also a general "I want it to be true so I remember it that way" aspect, but I think that's contributory rather than the main cause.
  - xnx 1y ago
    > What do you specifically see? 1942-1945: Big increase to pay for fighting/winning a World War 1946-2007: More or less fiscally responsible 2008-present: War-like level of debt increase to counteract a down business cycle?
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > I see two big increases in debt I recommend the surplus/deficit by GDP graph, which is easier than manually eyeballing slopes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
- georgemcbay 1y ago
  > It looks like it was under control for a while following World War II, but then from the early 1980 Democrats had a near solid lock on Congress from World War II until the early 1980s (only 2 two year sessions where they didn't control both chambers) and Congress hadn't abdicated its power of the purse. Republicans spend a lot of time branding themselves as the "party of fiscal responsibility", but ask yourself in what situations a group needs heavy branding by way of incessant self messaging. By every major objective measure, Republican control of government has been worse for the economy. And to be clear, none of this reply is meant as a defense of the current Democratic party which is currently (at the national level) leaderless and in shambles and is far too captured by its donor class of special interests to protect the interests of the American working and middle classes and who will be unable to regain real power until they address that.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > it's hard for me not correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph Many years ago I recall seeing a chart that annotated-out the party had the Presidency or majorities in either house of Congress along the "time" axis, but I'm not having any luck finding one. Sort of like this [0] except including a line for deficit/surplus by GDP. [1] There are a lot of charts out there where the Presidency is shown, but IMO that plays in to a false narrative about who really has power over budgeting and how-much. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-pa... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
kamikazeturtles 1y ago
> Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling. I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years. 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get something akin to 2008 again. Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive but I'm not an economist so I don't know what I'm talking about. Then you have the services sector which makes you reconsider what the point of calculating a country's GDP is to begin with?
- epolanski 1y ago
  > Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen nurses in many third world countries working hard, because the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output. People doing nothing in America are much more productive than people doing a lot in most of the world because that is how we define productivity, and how the term is discussed in articles and papers. Doesn't matter, the same articles and papers will bring up that US enjoys higher productivity due to better technologies, etc, but since all of that makes it very hard to be really measured, it's always a mixture of some heterogeneous ideas together.
  - coffeemug 1y ago
    In practice third world countries are very unproductive, and it's immediately visible to the naked eye. Many shops and restaurants have half a dozen people (or more!) taking the order and handling the check, there are entire extended families manning market stalls that barely sell anything, cabbies just hang out all day waiting for a ride, etc. You might be theoretically right, but I think that's not actually how it works out in reality.
    - epolanski 1y ago
      I have made a very specific example, you extrapolated some other data from it. If you want a clearer comparison take Japan and tell me their average driver, nurse, teacher, policeman, factory worker, carpenter, painter, car mechanic, shop assistant, barista, bank clerk, etc does "less" or "less efficiently" than his american counter part. Because there is a huge difference in measured productivity between them. There might be, at times, some added productivity in US due to having more capital at disposal to adopt some technology, there might be some other benefits from being more risk prone in US? Sure. But that amounts for smallish differences and sure not for the immense gap measured by economic measures, which, at the end of the day, as explained with the initial sleeping nurse example is still $/hour.
stock_toaster 1y ago
This graph[0] is also pretty interesting. [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S
- Terr_ 1y ago
  The important difference [0] is: 1. "Gross federal debt" includes the money which Congress borrowed from (future) Social Security recipients in order to pay for (current) tax-cuts and middle-east invasions and whatnot. 2. "Held by the public" excludes that portion, focusing on money borrowed from individuals/companies/other-countries that voluntarily lent their money to the US government. So we should make our decisions based on the first one, unless someone is plotting to screw millions of American taxpayers out of the money they already paid as insurance-premiums. :p [0] https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-public https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-p...
rootjknak 1y ago
the biggest spikes seems to have been 1.) 2008 financial crisis, 67% -> 82% 2.) covid, 105% -> 125% so basically, a one time war injury upon America's finance and health.
jeffbee 1y ago
Bill Clinton: the GOAT.
- nickff 1y ago
  The end of the Cold War (allowing reduced defense spending), along with a massive asset bubble (with accompanying capital gains tax revenue increases) did wonders for the budget.
  - thuridas 1y ago
    And reducing taxes made the deficit bigger
  - xnx 1y ago
    AKA "peace dividend"
- pstuart 1y ago
  Back when the Congress was still semi-functional.
potato3732842 1y ago
The real scary thing ought to be how tapped out the GDP is now vs when the graph was low. In the 1970s and 80s there was plenty of room for growth. These days the women are all in the workforce and everything is financialized already. There's no "easy gains" in 2020whatevver.
gruez 1y ago
>Of course, this doesn't show projections for what the future debt will become after the Republican's "BBB" package from a few months ago. https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250705_FBC165.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250705_FBC...
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  With interest rates that have to remain high to control inflation.

by Terr_ 1y ago

the_real_cher 1y ago

What a cool graph. Interesting to see the issues that get the ire of the current administration like food stamps and education and foreign aid are minuscule line items on that visualization.

emchammer 1y ago

It looks like it was under control for a while following World War II, but then from the early 1980s, it's hard for me not correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph with presidential party.

secabeen 1y ago
What do you specifically see? I see two big increases in debt, both due to shocks (the 08 financial crisis, and the pandemic; one under Obama, and one under Trump.). Pre 2008, it does look like moderate increases under Reagan/Bush1 and Bush 2, and flat to decrease under Clinton, is that what you mean?
- emchammer 1y ago
  Yes, that's roughly what I see. The bottom of the Y axis on this graph is 30% which can be a little deceptive. It looks to me like Clinton and Obama had a terrible challenge in bringing this under control following the early 1980s and the 2008 financial crises and they did what they could, and then there is also Reaganomics. It just looks so hopeless because this figure is as high as it was following the war. Now Biff Tannen's in the White House, and he'll be knocking down walls. I don't think the system was meant to handle human greed on this scale.
  - rbanffy 1y ago
    > I don't think the system was meant to handle human greed on this scale. It was held together by decorum. There is none left.
- etchalon 1y ago
  The 2008 crisis happened under Bush, not Obama. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, 2009.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    Not only was Obama not inaugurated until 2009, but the Great Recession began in 2007, so tying it to Obama because it is popularly associated with 2008 and Obama was elected towards the end of that year is...doubly wrong.
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      I'm also certain some folks believe Biden was President during the start of COVID-19 in the US too. (Jan 2020.) It seems to be a pattern, where a disturbingly-large minority of people remember nothing but the year-number of an election (e.g. "2008") and never account for how voting was at the end of that year and the voting-result only takes effect the next (odd-numbered) year. Oh, there's also a general "I want it to be true so I remember it that way" aspect, but I think that's contributory rather than the main cause.
- xnx 1y ago
  > What do you specifically see? 1942-1945: Big increase to pay for fighting/winning a World War 1946-2007: More or less fiscally responsible 2008-present: War-like level of debt increase to counteract a down business cycle?
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > I see two big increases in debt I recommend the surplus/deficit by GDP graph, which is easier than manually eyeballing slopes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
georgemcbay 1y ago
> It looks like it was under control for a while following World War II, but then from the early 1980 Democrats had a near solid lock on Congress from World War II until the early 1980s (only 2 two year sessions where they didn't control both chambers) and Congress hadn't abdicated its power of the purse. Republicans spend a lot of time branding themselves as the "party of fiscal responsibility", but ask yourself in what situations a group needs heavy branding by way of incessant self messaging. By every major objective measure, Republican control of government has been worse for the economy. And to be clear, none of this reply is meant as a defense of the current Democratic party which is currently (at the national level) leaderless and in shambles and is far too captured by its donor class of special interests to protect the interests of the American working and middle classes and who will be unable to regain real power until they address that.
Terr_ 1y ago
> it's hard for me not correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph Many years ago I recall seeing a chart that annotated-out the party had the Presidency or majorities in either house of Congress along the "time" axis, but I'm not having any luck finding one. Sort of like this [0] except including a line for deficit/surplus by GDP. [1] There are a lot of charts out there where the Presidency is shown, but IMO that plays in to a false narrative about who really has power over budgeting and how-much. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-pa... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S

kamikazeturtles 1y ago

> Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling. I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years. 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get something akin to 2008 again. Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive but I'm not an economist so I don't know what I'm talking about. Then you have the services sector which makes you reconsider what the point of calculating a country's GDP is to begin with?

epolanski 1y ago
> Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen nurses in many third world countries working hard, because the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output. People doing nothing in America are much more productive than people doing a lot in most of the world because that is how we define productivity, and how the term is discussed in articles and papers. Doesn't matter, the same articles and papers will bring up that US enjoys higher productivity due to better technologies, etc, but since all of that makes it very hard to be really measured, it's always a mixture of some heterogeneous ideas together.
- coffeemug 1y ago
  In practice third world countries are very unproductive, and it's immediately visible to the naked eye. Many shops and restaurants have half a dozen people (or more!) taking the order and handling the check, there are entire extended families manning market stalls that barely sell anything, cabbies just hang out all day waiting for a ride, etc. You might be theoretically right, but I think that's not actually how it works out in reality.
  - epolanski 1y ago
    I have made a very specific example, you extrapolated some other data from it. If you want a clearer comparison take Japan and tell me their average driver, nurse, teacher, policeman, factory worker, carpenter, painter, car mechanic, shop assistant, barista, bank clerk, etc does "less" or "less efficiently" than his american counter part. Because there is a huge difference in measured productivity between them. There might be, at times, some added productivity in US due to having more capital at disposal to adopt some technology, there might be some other benefits from being more risk prone in US? Sure. But that amounts for smallish differences and sure not for the immense gap measured by economic measures, which, at the end of the day, as explained with the initial sleeping nurse example is still $/hour.

stock_toaster 1y ago

This graph[0] is also pretty interesting. [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

Terr_ 1y ago
The important difference [0] is: 1. "Gross federal debt" includes the money which Congress borrowed from (future) Social Security recipients in order to pay for (current) tax-cuts and middle-east invasions and whatnot. 2. "Held by the public" excludes that portion, focusing on money borrowed from individuals/companies/other-countries that voluntarily lent their money to the US government. So we should make our decisions based on the first one, unless someone is plotting to screw millions of American taxpayers out of the money they already paid as insurance-premiums. :p [0] https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-public https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-p...

rootjknak 1y ago

the biggest spikes seems to have been 1.) 2008 financial crisis, 67% -> 82% 2.) covid, 105% -> 125% so basically, a one time war injury upon America's finance and health.

jeffbee 1y ago

Bill Clinton: the GOAT.

nickff 1y ago
The end of the Cold War (allowing reduced defense spending), along with a massive asset bubble (with accompanying capital gains tax revenue increases) did wonders for the budget.
- thuridas 1y ago
  And reducing taxes made the deficit bigger
- xnx 1y ago
  AKA "peace dividend"
pstuart 1y ago
Back when the Congress was still semi-functional.

potato3732842 1y ago

The real scary thing ought to be how tapped out the GDP is now vs when the graph was low. In the 1970s and 80s there was plenty of room for growth. These days the women are all in the workforce and everything is financialized already. There's no "easy gains" in 2020whatevver.

gruez 1y ago

>Of course, this doesn't show projections for what the future debt will become after the Republican's "BBB" package from a few months ago. https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250705_FBC165.png https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250705_FBC...

cosmicgadget 1y ago
With interest rates that have to remain high to control inflation.