7 ms·
US national debt surges past $39 Trillion
- Helloworldboy 7mo ago[dead]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- jawns 7mo agoEconomists often say that the national debt isn't analogous to consumer debt, because the US has a number of means to address it that the average consumer does not have, including the ability to print money. And while that's true ... perhaps we as citizens and taxpayers would be better off ignoring that technicality and treating this debt as more like consumer debt. Eventually, it's going to come back to bite us or our children, and we need to be willing to make some hard choices now to avoid having to make even harder choices later.
- wagwang 7mo agoAh yes, the "we can cure debt by going into hyperinflation" argument
- cogman10 7mo agoIt's something that the US could uniquely do without going into hyperinflation due to it's status as a reserve currency. That all, of course, changes if other countries decide they've had enough of our shit and switch over to different reserve currencies like BRICS. And, of course, printing currency to get out of debt is something that would make countries consider dumping the dollar as a reserve currency.
- wagwang 7mo agoyou think we can print 40t without going into hyperinflation? Lol... Why would other countries hold usd if we print 40t
- cogman10 7mo agoWe don't need to print the entire debt. How it'd likely start is we print to cover a shortfall in debt. Maybe it's 500B, maybe it's 1T. And we could do that for a bit before entering hyperinflation. Hyperinflation would start when the TBill rate ends up exploding because people start pricing in dollar printing into the bond rates. And, as I said, it would be something that would cause countries to start looking at ditching the dollar. It's not great fiscal policy, but it is something that the US can currently uniquely do and enjoy without the absolute risk of hyperinflation.
- Ekaros 7mo agoAt some point it becomes better option just to take the money you get paid back and instead of loaning it out again buy something... Anything else really... And then it gets worse.
- leaves83829 7mo agonot just eventually. Its coming back to bite you now and for the last 10 years and the next 10 years. if you sell a house (and you're past the 500K exemption), or any kind of equities or gold, you're going to be a world of pain. Most of the "capital gains" aren't gains at all, it's just devaluation of the dollar. Let's say dollar devaluation is roughly 7% per year, that means you're paying 2% to 2.5% of your houses value every year in "capital gains" tax. sure, you don't pay it until you sell, but rest assured, it's accumulating. so 2M house means 40K to 50K per year! and if you think i'm overstating the 7%, just look at the case shiller housing index for the last 10 to 15 years! and if you're holding cash or bonds, you're even worse off. even if the dollar is devaluing at just 7% per year, that's a 50% loss in just 10 years and that compounds to 75% loss after 20 years.
- mitthrowaway2 7mo agoI used to think that way, but now I don't believe that the debt ever needs to be repaid by anyone's children. The public sector debt is basically just a record of net private sector liquid assets, and repaying it would amount to the private sector losing all of its liquidity, or having to replace it with private debt instead. That's basically what happened throughout the roaring '20s preceding the Great Depression, and I don't think it really ends up being a good move.
- spacemark 7mo agoSurely at some point compounding interest will eclipse this, no? If our debt is 500 trillion does your opinion hold?
- mitthrowaway2 7mo agoYes, it's independent of the absolute level of debt. A 500 trillion dollar debt means the private sector is proportionately awash in 500 trillion of liquid assets. This will be reflected in a proportionately high (dollar-denominated) GDP, tax revenue, and consumer price level (absent any big changes in population or productivity). Of course, to get from 40 trillion to 500 trillion would mean that prices are basically 12x higher, which would mean a lot of inflation will have happened in the meantime. So it would be very bad if the government debt increased by that much in the timespan of one year, because it would basically mean hyperinflation over that span of time. But if that same growth in the debt happened over 400 years, it would be no big deal. So the relative rate of growth of the government debt certainly matters, because that influences inflation, which is the thing that actually causes problems. Not the size of the debt itself. That is, if G is outstanding government debt, then the figure that matters for inflation is approximately (1/G) dG/dt. But not the absolute level of the government debt G itself. This also means that compounding interest doesn't really affect the calculation. As the debt grows larger, and the interest payments grow larger, directly in proportion to the size of the debt, and therefore the economy as a whole -- they don't outgrow it. Assuming a steady and reasonable interest rate, at least. If the interest rate were super high or growing without bound, then yes, that would be a problem for the government debt. But that would be a pretty weird thing to happen and wouldn't happen just because the debt figure itself hit some large value, but probably instead because of a currency crisis (eg. the country owes debts to other countries in currencies it does not control). I'm trying to think of a good way to put this. A person can run out of water and die of thirst, but when you zoom out to bigger and bigger scales, the Earth itself doesn't run out of water; it just goes around in a cycle. Economists have a saying that "one man's expenses are another man's income". For a single household, that doesn't really feel true; the rest of the economy is so big that expenses bascially just disappear from your bank account, and you don't notice any of the money that leaves your pocket when you hire a plumber come back to you, even though some tiny amount actually does when that plumber buys food from your restaurant. So we individuals also can have the experience of debts growing big enough to bankrupt us as the interest payments exceed our income. But governments live on the same scale of economies as a whole, and for them, the recirculation of the money they spend really can't be removed from the analysis.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- spankalee 7mo agoThis would not be a good idea. Government "debt" expands the money supply, and if government spending gets us infrastructure and social services. The only big issue here is the interest, which we force ourselves to pay by requiring the issuing of bonds in the first place, and is a big transfer of tax payer money to the large bond-holders.
- OGWhales 7mo agoI don't see such a clear benefit to eliminating the debt, actually I see a lot of downsides that would likely be worse for our children. The way I understand it, the primary concern is whether the debt is growing faster than the economy can support and whether we're using it for productive purposes or not. A government isn't like a household: treasury debt also functions as a safe asset, a tool of monetary policy, and a store of value for pensions, banks, and investors around the world, a majority of the debt is also a domestic asset. Trying to eliminate the debt would likely mean austerity and major tax increases, which can be more damaging the debt itself. I don't think people realize that a large share of the government's debt is also a domestic asset. It is still something to be wary of and manage carefully but it is not something that I think is wise to eliminate either. The main concern should be making sure it is being used productively and is not exceeding what the growth of the economy can support (which happens when its used unproductively).
- kylehotchkiss 7mo agoWhat's $200 billion more gonna hurt :')
- croes 7mo agoBut only for war not for social benefits, that would be irresponsible spending
- westmeal 7mo agoIn war you don't have immigrants lining up for FREE HAND OUTS etc etc
- InitialLastName 7mo agoOne might argue that this war is a free hand-out to foreign interests.
- phatfish 7mo agoWell, as long as you bomb countries on the other side of the world. Someone else (the long suffering US allies) can deal with all the displaced peoples then.
- croes 7mo agoThose immigrants who do all those low paid jobs and who paid billions of taxes without the benefits? Schrödinger‘s immigrant, doesn’t work and takes American jobs
- baggachipz 7mo agoNo, during war you have refugees doing that. But where are these immigrants looking for free handouts? All the ones coming here are looking for work.
- westmeal 7mo agoGuys this was sarcasm btw
- 7mo ago
- cj 7mo agoThe Democratic party would do well if they rebranded as socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
- Macha 7mo agoIs this not theoretically the libertarian party? (Of course in reality it’s often the Republican-lite party). It hasn’t proven to be a winning strategy
- InitialLastName 7mo agoThe Libertarian Party is solely focused on reducing the liabilities side of the balance sheet in the interest of reducing the income side by lowering taxes. Try showing up to to a libertarian convention with "give me some money to invest in a program that will benefit our whole society" and see how far you get.
- DANmode 7mo agoOur whole society should be benefiting any day now, yeah?
- cosmicgadget 7mo agoNo, democrats and libertarians differ on the role of government in preventing businesses from acting unethically, firearms regulation, and age of consent.
- trgn 7mo agothat electorate doesnt exist in two party system.
- mattmaroon 7mo agoIt can.
- trgn 7mo ago
- baal80spam 7mo agoIt's just a number.
- Ekaros 7mo agoBasically yes. Well apart when it comes to our wages and credit we get. At least if we are responsible and try to pay it back. But everything else is just numbers. Stock markets, commodities, gambling, collectibles. real estate... Everything...
- 1718627440 7mo agoThat represents the amount of work (part of the GDP) the state has promised to perform for outside entities.
- outside2344 7mo agoTrump has added $4T to the debt in one year: From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/d... 3/19/2025 $36,214,467,819,348.16. --> 3/17/2026 $39,016,762,910,245.14 Yet strangely all Republicans are silent
- mc32 7mo agoAre those numbers backwards or am I seeing things?
- outside2344 7mo agoSorry, copy and paste error. I copied the public debt number for 2026 instead of the total debt number. Fixed.
- babypuncher 7mo agoRepublicans are only deficit hawks when it comes to spending money on things every day people benefit from. If they actually gave even a single shit about the deficit, they wouldn't hand billionaires massive tax breaks every single time they take power.
- CalChris 7mo agoReagan campaigned against Carter’s profligate spending.
- babypuncher 7mo agoAnd then proceeded to blow up the deficit even more himself. What they campaign on and what they actually do are different things.
- tstrimple 7mo agoAnd then blew up the deficit and started our massive accumulation of debt. A pattern gleefully followed by every single Republican administration since. Every single Democratic administration since has reduced the deficit the "spend and give tax breaks" Republicans have run up. But it's a losing battle clearly.
- christophilus 7mo agoCompounding working the way it always does. This won’t stop until it breaks.
- 6stringmerc 7mo ago…add on another $1T for the student loans that will never be repaid. Those aren’t counted? There’s a shocker. Mr. Market lost his Marker up his ass a long time ago y’all. Plan accordingly.
- bawolff 7mo agoSo at what point does us bond ratings go down and cost of borrowing becomes problematic? I know us is buyoed by the petrodollar, but surely that only goes so far.
- tantalor 7mo ago> Pearkes said the price of oil might have to hit $200 a barrel to push the U.S. economy into a recession. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/03/16/when-will-higher-oil-prices-start-to-drag-this-economy-down https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/03/16/when-will-highe...
- claythearc 7mo agoThere's a LOT of nuance in any answer to this but the short of it is: we've already been downgraded by all the major agencies over the last 15 years, despite this - the market doesn't really seem to care. Partly because while our actual debt # is high - we're also giga rich, leaving us around #10 for debt-to-GDP right next to Italy, Canada, and France. Furthermore, the gap between places to ~#8-#20 is pretty small so its even less severe in practice. These numbers will shift a little bit based on which estimates you look at, but the spirit shouldn't change. So, its not a major issue today but it could become one if spending continues to accelerate.
- rconti 7mo ago> The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impact of rising government debt on Americans Well, we found another agency that won't last much longer in this administration...
- daveguy 7mo agoSurprised they didn't axe them first just based on the name.
- ceejayoz 7mo agoThe GAO is part of the legislative branch, not the executive. Makes that quite a bit harder.
- genthree 7mo agoGAO and CBO are under Congress directly, fortunately. They're both awesome. Anyone who starts talking about all kinds of obvious ways to cut waste in government and isn't dropping references to GAO and CBO reports all over the place, is almost certainly bullshitting you (glares at Elon Musk). The GOP has hated them for quite a while because they consistently tell them that no, of fucking course cutting taxes won't "pay for itself", but they haven't yet had the votes to get rid of them. Trump can't, they're some of the few government functions that fall under Congress (possible because they don't really administer government, they just issue reports, largely on request, so they're more like research librarians than administrators)
- pestatije 7mo agothats roughly $100 grand per head
- krapp 7mo agoUh oh. Looks like we're gonna have to cut spending on science, regulation, infrastructure and social programs even more.
- SilverElfin 7mo agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434138
- wnevets 7mo agoI'm sort of surprised to see this on the HN front page. Typically the US national debt is only a mainstream topic of discourse when there isn't a Republican in office.
- drcongo 7mo agoIt's a good job Elon Musk and his friends sacked all those governement workers, otherwise it would have been $39.0000001 trillion.
- impure 7mo agoIf Elon Musk hadn't sacked those government workers it would probably be less than 39 trillion as he had to pay termination packages and hire back people he accidentally fired.
- bdangubic 7mo ago> hire back people he accidentally fired much worse in reality, many have been replaced by government contractors we are paying 2.5/3x more
- jghn 7mo agoKinda funny how in some 4 year periods these sorts of headlines are treated as existential crises, whereas in other 4 year periods they are not.
- spankalee 7mo agoThis is a good time to share this article again: Isn’t it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - https://evonomics.com/isnt-time-stop-calling-national-debt/ https://evonomics.com/isnt-time-stop-calling-national-debt/
- 1718627440 7mo agoI already don't understand the beginning of the article: > Imagine you’re the queen or king of a sovereign country. You decide to mint and issue a bunch of tin coins that your people will find useful. You use those coins to buy stuff from people in the private sector, and pay them to do work. Voilà, the people have money. This describes how you create money. People give work and the government gives money. But that isn't what national debt is? That would be when the people give money to the government and don't get work in return, but the promise to pay more money back. This then means that some amount of taxes can't go back to things the government wants to give back to the people, but needs to go to the interest holders instead. Given that I already don't understand the intro, the whole article sounds like nonsense to me. What am I missing?
- myrmidon 7mo agoAs GDP percentage, only two countries are higher: Italy and Greece (edit: and Japan). Public debt is a significant political talking point in both cases (and even in Germany, with a much lower debt percentage). The current US administration (and the last republicans in general) did an excellent job in pretending to be the ones fighting public debt when they are actually exacerbating it; I'm curious if there is gonna be a reckoning at some point.
- legitster 7mo agoThat can't be right as Japan's Debt-To-GDP Ratio is almost double the US's.
- myrmidon 7mo agoYou are absolutely right. I did not realize that my dataset was missing most of Asia/Africa. Japan ist at ~230%, but interestingly decreasing pretty quickly (decreased their debth from almost 260% GDP in 2020). I have sadly no idea how much focus this gets in japanese politics, would be very curious if anyone knows.
- LightBug1 7mo agoHow that's ole' DOGE horseshit coming along? Are you feeling those tremendous efficiency gains yet?
- legitster 7mo agoGovernment debt gets resolved eventually through inflation. There's never a point where we have to "pay it all back" and get the debt down to zero. We just end up paying of a $1 loan with a dollar that's worth only 50c. So there's never a particular point that it "comes back to bite us" - if anything, the "bite" is happening already right now for all of us. Inflation is a form of taxation on currency. It's less like credit card debt and more like wage garnishing. It's also worth pointing out that young people are less affected by inflation than old - retirees and people with savings. Inflation is good for people in debt. So it's not so much your children you have to worry about with today's debt level so much as it is yourself.
- myrmidon 7mo ago> Government debt gets resolved through inflation. This is misleading. US debt as GDP percentage is higher than for any other nation except Italy and Greece, and was much lower historically, too (<50%ish for basically the last century instead of >100% now). So the status quo is not how government spending gets typically resolved. Racking up public debt risks runaway inflation, which is unpleasant for everyone.
- neilwilson 7mo agoComparing a currency issuer like the US to currency users like Italy and Greece is a category error. You can compare Alaska to Greece or California to Italy. But you should compare the US to other currency issuers - like the Eurozone, Japan or the UK.
- myrmidon 7mo agoEuro area is slightly under 90%, doing a bit worse than EU average (80%ish). Japan is much higher-- I did not have that in my dataset, appears to be at 230% debt but decreasing pretty rapidly (down from almost 260% in 2020).
- neilwilson 7mo agoIt’s rather more simple than that. In a floating exchange rate world, which is the one we live in a dollar is just a 0% bearer bond. So when a government bond matures it is replaced automatically with a simple bank deposit. It’s nothing more than an asset swap. “People with savings” are precisely why there is a “debt” in the first place. When they spend those savings they pass tax points which then creates the tax that retires the “debt”. To put it in simple terms the “grandchildren” will “service the debt” using the counterparty “savings assets”inherited from their “grandparents”. Don’t fall for the standard narrative. It’s not true.
- xnx 7mo agoFor some context: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S That chart doesn't include WWII, which might be the only time that comes close.
- mothballed 7mo agoBill Clinton v2 was the best small government Republican president we had in awhile.
- impure 7mo agoApparently the debt is keeping the Fed from raising interest rates as much as they did in 1979 when a similar crisis happened. Raising interest rates would increase the debt servicing costs pushing the US into a debt crisis.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo agoWhere we are now is nothing like where we were in 1979. Inflation was something like 14%. Interest rates hit 20%. Yeah, I know that the last few years were painful after 15 years of ZIRP, but it's not at all the same.
- StoneAndSky 7mo agoI will never forget, and neither should you, that the last time we had a budget surplus, instead of doing _anything_ useful with it, the Republicans decided the best thing to do was to send everyone a check in the mail. Among the useful suggestions of what to do with it, besides pay down the debt: Keep a slush fund in case of an unexpected war. (This was a few weeks before 9/11.)