How much debt is too much

[itfitzme]

OK, let me change the question in the OP.

Libs and dems: Is it good or bad that the country is now 17 trillion in debt and the debt increasing by around 1 trillion per year?

Good or Bad. Simple question.

It is neither.

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

Here is the monetary fact of the macro economy.

Every dollar in government debt is a dollar in private and financial sector savings.

So the question is, for the moron yelling "lib", how do you propose that the economy should function? Who should carry the debt burdon? Financial markets? Households? Private businesses? And if so, why. If in some balanced percentage for each, then what percentages and why?

Do you have a clue how the macro economy and the money supply works? Or are you going with the moronic, "it;s just like a household budget" idea?

 

[itfitzme]

OK, let me change the question in the OP.

Libs and dems: Is it good or bad that the country is now 17 trillion in debt and the debt increasing by around 1 trillion per year?

Good or Bad. Simple question.

It is neither.

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

I'm still waiting, shit for brains. Managed to even find and present the graph of money supply sector balances in the mean time.

There is a nice textbook on Introductory Macroeconomics by Povey.

You can google it.

So where is that "integrity" you imply that you have? Can't admit that you are clueless?

 

[itfitzme]

OK, let me change the question in the OP.

Libs and dems: Is it good or bad that the country is now 17 trillion in debt and the debt increasing by around 1 trillion per year?

Good or Bad. Simple question.

So if not he gov, who exactly should carry the debt? Businesses? Households? Financial markets? By what distribution.

It's a simple question, what distribution?

 

[JoeNormal]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

 

[RKMBrown]

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

The reason revenue is only 16% and not 20% is that 2/3 of the friggin country pays no income tax.

After calling me a retard for arguing that revenue is the problem, you just now argued that revenue is the problem.

No, I did not. Explaining a reason for the difference is not saying the reason for the difference is a problem. Further as I've clearly laid out for you, even if you were to cancel the bush taxes then double everyone's personal income tax rates you'd still have a revenue shortfall. But I suppose we could take all of your income and all your assets then scream at you to make more money for us, then maybe you'd agree there is a spending problem.

 

[RKMBrown]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

 

[JoeNormal]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that a worker today can't churn out a whole bunch more than they could 80 years ago.

 

[Synthaholic]

we could tax the rich at 100% and it would be a drop in the bucket, I don't care if their tax rates are raised, but it will not fix our fiscal mess

capital gains make your 401K account grow, if you want to give that up to taxes, fine.

EIC is a negative tax, we are rewarding people for having a low income. why isn't zero enough?

A subsidy is a direct payment, I have no problem doing away with all corporate tax credits, but be ready for the price of gas to go up as well as the price of all kinds of food.

So, if we take away their welfare, we will be subjected to blackmail?




I don't agree. It's chump change, and gives us leverage with other countries.




It's not needed, and never was. We still have 15-20 intel services all speaking past each other.

Why do you want to tax family farms and businesses out of business? how does that help the country?

They weren't taxed out of business in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

foreign aid does not give us leverage, it makes us look like chumps

Of course it gives us leverage. Do you think Egypt would give a shit what we wanted were it not for the $4 billion in aid each year? Same with Pakistan, Türkiye, Israel, India.

If you make the cost of doing business higher, prices will go up. like it or not, thats the way it works.

Who says eliminating the corporate welfare will make the cost of business higher? Oh, yeah...the corporations.

Funny how we didn't get price reductions when these subsidies were put in place - shouldn't they have made the cost of doing business drop?

I thought you libs wanted consolidation of govt agencies. DHS is a consolidation of USCG, border patrol, etc

Conservatives don't want that?

It hasn't worked. If it had, we would have eliminated agencies doing duplicate intel.

inheritance taxes forced many family farms and businesses to sell out in the 50s-70s. Do you now prefer large corporate farms and big box stores to family businesses?

That's a fairy tale.

 

[Synthaholic]

• Raise the taxes of people making over $500,000.
• Raise the capital gains tax rate to mid-1970s level.
• Close all tax loopholes.
• End corporate subsidies.
• Cut the Pentagon budget.
• Eliminate Dept. of Homeland Security.
• Revive the Estate Tax.

The problem is not government needing more money. You're completely naive if you think the increased revenue that would bring would result in government spending within its means.

That's exactly the problem. Austerity has been a major failure, just as Paul Krugman and others said it would be. It has failed everywhere it was enacted.

 

[Synthaholic]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

 

[RKMBrown]

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that a worker today can't churn out a whole bunch more than they could 80 years ago.

Ok... because half of the productivity improvements claimed by the government are lies made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

 

[itfitzme]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

"Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years."

Just to add some detail;

"Those born prior to 1950 can receive full benefits at age 65; those born between 1950 and 1960 are eligible for full benefits at age 66, and those born since 1960 become eligible at age 67. "

Social Security Disability - OASDI (Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance)

Actually, productivity has better than doubled.

(Math was not right. Couldn't have been....)

Since age 65 retirees, in 1950.

.11/.0375 = 2.93


"Common sense dictates "

Why do people always refer to reasoning with no basis in reality as "common sense"?

 

[itfitzme]

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that a worker today can't churn out a whole bunch more than they could 80 years ago.

Ok... because half of the productivity improvements claimed by the government are lies made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

Based on what, your "common sense"?

 

[JoeNormal]

Cause productivity improvements are a lie made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that a worker today can't churn out a whole bunch more than they could 80 years ago.

Ok... because half of the productivity improvements claimed by the government are lies made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

Why would it help them get re-elected? Of the productivity increasing innovations that come from the government, exactly zero come from elected officials.

 

[JoeNormal]

Say what you will about the man, and I've made my share of attacks on the guy, John Boehner at least has the balls to admit we need to raise the retirement age to 70.

We are living 30 percent longer than when the age was set at 65. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

Boehner needs to start pushing hard for this solution.

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

"Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years."

Just to add some detail;

"Those born prior to 1950 can receive full benefits at age 65; those born between 1950 and 1960 are eligible for full benefits at age 66, and those born since 1960 become eligible at age 67. "

Social Security Disability - OASDI (Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance)

Actually, productivity has better than doubled.

And, if I got my math right, it has tripled in less than 30 years.

(11-x)/11=1/3
3(11-x)=11
33-3x=11
22=3x
x=22/3
x=7.3

So tripled would put it as starting when RGDP was .073, about 1987. That would be 26 years. Tripled in less than three decades.

"Common sense dictates "

Why do people always refer to reasoning with no basis in reality as "common sense"?

Cool, even better than I thought.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that a worker today can't churn out a whole bunch more than they could 80 years ago.

Ok... because half of the productivity improvements claimed by the government are lies made up by the government to artificially inflate GDP to get them re-elected.

Based on what, your "common sense"?

Based on the changes government made to how they calculate CPI, which is a factor in GDP calculations.

Why The Consumer Price Index Is Controversial

Summary: If you switch from buying steak because it went from 5->10 bucks a pound based on productivity reductions (such as mad cow), and start eating chicken instead which is cheaper at 2bucks a pound, government calls that a productivity increase lowering CPI vs real inflation which in turn inflates GDP because we can all eat more pounds of food now.

This is reflected through GDP in the form of increased supposed value for cell phones because they have new features etc, even if there is less actual production and consumption, it's a better phone for the same price so CPI goes down because it would have cost you more for that phone last year.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hell the government even adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home. LOL GDP is a joke.

 

[itfitzme]

Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years. It's probably quadrupled since the 65 year retirement age was set. Why can't the retirement age stay at 65?

"Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years."

Just to add some detail;

"Those born prior to 1950 can receive full benefits at age 65; those born between 1950 and 1960 are eligible for full benefits at age 66, and those born since 1960 become eligible at age 67. "

Social Security Disability - OASDI (Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance)

Actually, productivity has better than doubled.

And, if I got my math right, it has tripled in less than 30 years.

(11-x)/11=1/3
3(11-x)=11
33-3x=11
22=3x
x=22/3
x=7.3

So tripled would put it as starting when RGDP was .073, about 1987. That would be 26 years. Tripled in less than three decades.

"Common sense dictates "

Why do people always refer to reasoning with no basis in reality as "common sense"?

Cool, even better than I thought.

Unfortunately, my math sucked. No clue what I was thinking. Well, I kinda do.

I'm looking at the distance from 1950 to 2014 and half of that is 1983 or so. So, twice whatever it was from 1950 to 1987 would be doubled.

There is the problem, doubled compared to what/when? Doesn't seem right to say doubled compared to nothing. After all, productivity never was nothing.

Just eyeballing it, tripled since 1970 or so, compared to where it was in 1950.

Compared to zero, which it never has been zero, that would be about 4x since 1950 when the retirement age bumped. But that doesn't really make sense, starting at zero.

Yeah, your basically right. A shit load.

 

[JoeNormal]

"Productivity has almost doubled in the last 30 years."

Just to add some detail;

"Those born prior to 1950 can receive full benefits at age 65; those born between 1950 and 1960 are eligible for full benefits at age 66, and those born since 1960 become eligible at age 67. "

Social Security Disability - OASDI (Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance)

Actually, productivity has better than doubled.

And, if I got my math right, it has tripled in less than 30 years.

(11-x)/11=1/3
3(11-x)=11
33-3x=11
22=3x
x=22/3
x=7.3

So tripled would put it as starting when RGDP was .073, about 1987. That would be 26 years. Tripled in less than three decades.

"Common sense dictates "

Why do people always refer to reasoning with no basis in reality as "common sense"?

Cool, even better than I thought.

Unfortunately, my math sucked. No clue what I was thinking. Well, I kinda do.

I'm looking at the distance from 1950 to 2014 and half of that is 1983 or so. So, twice whatever it was from 1950 to 1987 would be doubled.

There is the problem, doubled compared to what/when? Doesn't seem right to say doubled compared to nothing. After all, productivity never was nothing.

Just eyeballing it, tripled since 1970 or so, compared to where it was in 1950.

Compared to zero, which it never has been zero, that would be about 4x since 1950 when the retirement age bumped. But that doesn't really make sense, starting at zero.

Yeah, your basically right. A shit load.

Here's what I was thinking - they set the retirement age around 80 years ago so that would be the basis for comparison. I thought the productivity increases in the last 30 years were a little more rapid than before that so I thought quadrupling would be about right. However, the trend in the graph you posted looked pretty consistent out to 1950 so I'll bet productivity has more than quadrupled.

 

[itfitzme]

Hell the government even adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home. LOL GDP is a joke.

Yeah, you need to go read up on GDP. You are wrong.

Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Renovations and upkeep by an individual to a home that she owns and occupies are included. The value of the upkeep is estimated as the rent that she could charge for the home if she did not occupy it herself. This is the largest item of production for own use by an individual (as opposed to a business) that the compilers include in GDP.[18] If the measure uses historical or book prices for real estate, this will grossly underestimate the value of the rent in real estate markets which have experienced significant price increases (or economies with general inflation). Furthermore, depreciation schedules for houses often accelerate the accounted depreciation relative to actual depreciation (a well built house can be lived in for several hundred years – a very long time after it has been fully depreciated). In summary, this is likely to grossly underestimate the value of existing housing stock on consumers' actual consumption or income."

That is renovations and upkeep are estimated as the rent that could be charged if the home were rented out.

You can also find it on page 5 of the NIPA primer. It is in the box called "An Imputation for the Services of Owner-Occupied Housing"