Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[CrusaderFrank]

US Treasuries are nothing more than dollar deposits at the FED unless you know something I don't.

So US Treasuries are private profits and currency and equity.

Is there anything they're not?

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

I see.

And how is that different from putting money into Google or Geico or NYC Real estate?

 

[Kimura]

So US Treasuries are private profits and currency and equity.

Is there anything they're not?

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

I see.

And how is that different from putting money into Google or Geico or NYC Real estate?

A stock represents an ownership percentage in a company. The stock market tends to be a riskier investment, much more volatile, but you'll get a better rate of return long-term. US government securities are a place to park your cash in a risk-free environment. Real estate is a good bet if you have the time and inclination.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

I see.

And how is that different from putting money into Google or Geico or NYC Real estate?

A stock represents an ownership percentage in a company. The stock market tends to be a riskier investment, much more volatile, but you'll get a better rate of return long-term. US government securities are a place to park your cash in a risk-free environment. Real estate is a good bet if you have the time and inclination.

Er, so it's not really different. It too can be currency and equity, but this time it's real equity

 

[Kimura]

I see.

And how is that different from putting money into Google or Geico or NYC Real estate?

A stock represents an ownership percentage in a company. The stock market tends to be a riskier investment, much more volatile, but you'll get a better rate of return long-term. US government securities are a place to park your cash in a risk-free environment. Real estate is a good bet if you have the time and inclination.

Er, so it's not really different. It too can be currency and equity, but this time it's real equity

It's different.

The federal government creates $$$$ by spending it into existence. That $$$$ is spent for public purpose to benefit the commons and public at large. In order to do this, the government buys real goods and services from the private sector with money (a tax credit or IOU if you will). This tax credit is redeemed when various firms and people make tax payments. This is where this national debt BS comes from.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A stock represents an ownership percentage in a company. The stock market tends to be a riskier investment, much more volatile, but you'll get a better rate of return long-term. US government securities are a place to park your cash in a risk-free environment. Real estate is a good bet if you have the time and inclination.

Er, so it's not really different. It too can be currency and equity, but this time it's real equity

It's different.

The federal government creates $$$$ by spending it into existence. That $$$$ is spent for public purpose to benefit the commons and public at large. In order to do this, the government buys real goods and services from the private sector with money (a tax credit or IOU if you will). This tax credit is redeemed when various firms and people make tax payments. This is where this national debt BS comes from.

So Apple creates no $$$$ when you buy their stock or products?

Really?

Is the money spent on Apple stock or products somehow different than money spent to buy T Bonds?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."





We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12 trillion since then.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?

Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues.

Besides his "peace dividend" defense cuts, where did he cut spending?

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."




The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves.

I guess it's a good thing that I never claimed they did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bond buyers.

Bond sales provide an interest bearing alternative to bank reserves. Whether they are sold by the FED through open market operations or by the Treasury as new issues, the effect is identical. We have swapped reserves for Treasuries. This enables the FED to hit its overnight rate target. Either way, whether these bond sales come from the FED or Treasury, it's still falls under the purview of monetary operations.

The government realizes that reserves are non-discretionary. When the banking system has excess reserves, this causes the overnight rate to drop under the target, which triggers the bond sales. OTOH, if the banking system is constrained, and the rate goes over target, this will trigger bond purchases. The overall effect is identical.

This entire thing is a legal requirement left over from the days of the gold standard. The FED spends by crediting private bank accounts, this triggering mechanism for bond auctions is after the fact.

Again, the government doesn't borrow its own fiat. Government "borrowing" only functions to support interest rates.

Okay, so what?

see above



Taxes regulate aggregate demand and guarantee all prices, assets and debts are priced in dollars. When we pay taxes, a demand deposit account is debited and the money is basically shredded.

How about just holding spending steady?

#1 Deficits are directly related to private sector profits.

#2 In terms of accounting logic, it's equal to the surplus of the non-government.

#3 Deficits add net financial assets to the non-government.

#4 We run a trade deficit, this would result in the private sector accumulating large debts.

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense, from an economic and accounting standpoint. It’s based on some alleged minimum a government should spend. This means we’re dealing with an accounting identity. For example, if all people and firms want to hold cash, that $$$ must be the difference after tax payments. All $$$ being held by the public must exceed the $$$$ being given out by the federal government which must be in excess of the requirement to make tax payments (deficits). The same can be said of all USD being held at the Federal Reserve by foreign central banks. As I've tried to outline, and for other structural reasons, a balanced budget will result in serious deflation.

The federal debt is simply a representation of all the $$$ spent which hasn't been taxed. The borrowing occurred after the fact so any holders of said $$$ might earn some interest. The federal government pays interest depending on how much we want to earn. Have you ever heard a holder of US Treasuries complain that they want the government to stop selling securities so they can get their $$$ back?

Fetish? LOL!
The recent addition of over $7 trillion to the debt hasn't given us awesome growth.

That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route. We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

Why not let the market decide how large the deficit should be? The government could offer a job to anyone ready, willing and able to work. The pay would be set to a certain wage and we could let the deficit float. This would promote price stability (employment and not unemployment would be the stabilizer). We could also stabilize the price of labor and wages in the private sector would be directly tied to the job guarantee of government employment. If the government labor force become too large, taxes could be reduced, which would mean less government workers and decreased government spending as the private sector hired these workers. The idea being to create a national buffer stock.

Food for thought....

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense

Neither does a 4% deficit, this late in the "recovery".

That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route.

$7 trillion in added debt is fiscal policy.

We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

10% annual deficits? 15%? More?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

US Treasuries are nothing more than dollar deposits at the FED unless you know something I don't.

So US Treasuries are private profits and currency and equity.

Is there anything they're not?

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

We need fewer federal government liabilities and more private sector assets.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're on a desert Island, there are only 2 enterprises. One manufactures products made from coconuts: food, clothing, sunscreen. The other is the local government, they buy dead fish heads.

Why is giving money to the government superior to buying products from the coconut guy?

 

[Kimura]

Er, so it's not really different. It too can be currency and equity, but this time it's real equity

It's different.

The federal government creates $$$$ by spending it into existence. That $$$$ is spent for public purpose to benefit the commons and public at large. In order to do this, the government buys real goods and services from the private sector with money (a tax credit or IOU if you will). This tax credit is redeemed when various firms and people make tax payments. This is where this national debt BS comes from.

So Apple creates no $$$$ when you buy their stock or products?

Really?

Is the money spent on Apple sock or products somehow different than money spent to buy T Bonds?

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's different.

The federal government creates $$$$ by spending it into existence. That $$$$ is spent for public purpose to benefit the commons and public at large. In order to do this, the government buys real goods and services from the private sector with money (a tax credit or IOU if you will). This tax credit is redeemed when various firms and people make tax payments. This is where this national debt BS comes from.

So Apple creates no $$$$ when you buy their stock or products?

Really?

Is the money spent on Apple sock or products somehow different than money spent to buy T Bonds?

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

So, you got nothing.

OK

 

[Kimura]

Bond buyers.

Bond sales provide an interest bearing alternative to bank reserves. Whether they are sold by the FED through open market operations or by the Treasury as new issues, the effect is identical. We have swapped reserves for Treasuries. This enables the FED to hit its overnight rate target. Either way, whether these bond sales come from the FED or Treasury, it's still falls under the purview of monetary operations.

The government realizes that reserves are non-discretionary. When the banking system has excess reserves, this causes the overnight rate to drop under the target, which triggers the bond sales. OTOH, if the banking system is constrained, and the rate goes over target, this will trigger bond purchases. The overall effect is identical.

This entire thing is a legal requirement left over from the days of the gold standard. The FED spends by crediting private bank accounts, this triggering mechanism for bond auctions is after the fact.

Again, the government doesn't borrow its own fiat. Government "borrowing" only functions to support interest rates.



see above



Taxes regulate aggregate demand and guarantee all prices, assets and debts are priced in dollars. When we pay taxes, a demand deposit account is debited and the money is basically shredded.



#1 Deficits are directly related to private sector profits.

#2 In terms of accounting logic, it's equal to the surplus of the non-government.

#3 Deficits add net financial assets to the non-government.

#4 We run a trade deficit, this would result in the private sector accumulating large debts.

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense, from an economic and accounting standpoint. It’s based on some alleged minimum a government should spend. This means we’re dealing with an accounting identity. For example, if all people and firms want to hold cash, that $$$ must be the difference after tax payments. All $$$ being held by the public must exceed the $$$$ being given out by the federal government which must be in excess of the requirement to make tax payments (deficits). The same can be said of all USD being held at the Federal Reserve by foreign central banks. As I've tried to outline, and for other structural reasons, a balanced budget will result in serious deflation.

The federal debt is simply a representation of all the $$$ spent which hasn't been taxed. The borrowing occurred after the fact so any holders of said $$$ might earn some interest. The federal government pays interest depending on how much we want to earn. Have you ever heard a holder of US Treasuries complain that they want the government to stop selling securities so they can get their $$$ back?

Fetish? LOL!
The recent addition of over $7 trillion to the debt hasn't given us awesome growth.

That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route. We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

Why not let the market decide how large the deficit should be? The government could offer a job to anyone ready, willing and able to work. The pay would be set to a certain wage and we could let the deficit float. This would promote price stability (employment and not unemployment would be the stabilizer). We could also stabilize the price of labor and wages in the private sector would be directly tied to the job guarantee of government employment. If the government labor force become too large, taxes could be reduced, which would mean less government workers and decreased government spending as the private sector hired these workers. The idea being to create a national buffer stock.

Food for thought....

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense

Neither does a 4% deficit, this late in the "recovery".

That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route.

$7 trillion in added debt is fiscal policy.

We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

10% annual deficits? 15%? More?

Any talk of fiscal responsibility should start with public purpose. We should spend to achieve public purpose. It’s fiscally ignorant and irresponsible to consider a deficit reduction plan when we run a persistent trade deficit and output gap. Any such plan constructed will remove net financial assets from the private sector as long as it’s pursued. If it’s pursued on a long enough time frame, the decreased financial assets will further worsen the output gap by decreasing aggregate demand and this will result in both a deterioration of CAPITAL and LABOR. Then we have a situation of further degradation of productive capacity in the economy and the federal government’s ability to maintain some semblance of productive deficit spending which should be based around an overall output of serving public purpose and social value.

 

[Kimura]

So Apple creates no $$$$ when you buy their stock or products?

Really?

Is the money spent on Apple sock or products somehow different than money spent to buy T Bonds?

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

So, you got nothing.

OK

Try me, I'll think of an example you can wrap your head around.

 

[Kimura]

So US Treasuries are private profits and currency and equity.

Is there anything they're not?

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

We need fewer federal government liabilities and more private sector assets.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

Like I tried to explain to Mr. Zappa, the national debt is nothing more than a boatload of dollar balances over at the FED. We call these dollar deposits, which are like savings' accounts, 'Treasury securities'. In the bond business, we refer to them as securities' accounts, along with 'reserve accounts'. These reserve accounts are similar to checking accounts. These securities' accounts, reserve accounts and the actual total cash in circulation make up the total net dollar-based savings of the global economy. When the federal government spends more than it receives back in taxes, those additional dollars it spends first start off in our checking accounts, and a certain amount end up in securities' accounts over the FED.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bond sales provide an interest bearing alternative to bank reserves. Whether they are sold by the FED through open market operations or by the Treasury as new issues, the effect is identical. We have swapped reserves for Treasuries. This enables the FED to hit its overnight rate target. Either way, whether these bond sales come from the FED or Treasury, it's still falls under the purview of monetary operations.

The government realizes that reserves are non-discretionary. When the banking system has excess reserves, this causes the overnight rate to drop under the target, which triggers the bond sales. OTOH, if the banking system is constrained, and the rate goes over target, this will trigger bond purchases. The overall effect is identical.

This entire thing is a legal requirement left over from the days of the gold standard. The FED spends by crediting private bank accounts, this triggering mechanism for bond auctions is after the fact.

Again, the government doesn't borrow its own fiat. Government "borrowing" only functions to support interest rates.



see above



Taxes regulate aggregate demand and guarantee all prices, assets and debts are priced in dollars. When we pay taxes, a demand deposit account is debited and the money is basically shredded.



#1 Deficits are directly related to private sector profits.

#2 In terms of accounting logic, it's equal to the surplus of the non-government.

#3 Deficits add net financial assets to the non-government.

#4 We run a trade deficit, this would result in the private sector accumulating large debts.

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense, from an economic and accounting standpoint. It’s based on some alleged minimum a government should spend. This means we’re dealing with an accounting identity. For example, if all people and firms want to hold cash, that $$$ must be the difference after tax payments. All $$$ being held by the public must exceed the $$$$ being given out by the federal government which must be in excess of the requirement to make tax payments (deficits). The same can be said of all USD being held at the Federal Reserve by foreign central banks. As I've tried to outline, and for other structural reasons, a balanced budget will result in serious deflation.

The federal debt is simply a representation of all the $$$ spent which hasn't been taxed. The borrowing occurred after the fact so any holders of said $$$ might earn some interest. The federal government pays interest depending on how much we want to earn. Have you ever heard a holder of US Treasuries complain that they want the government to stop selling securities so they can get their $$$ back?




That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route. We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

Why not let the market decide how large the deficit should be? The government could offer a job to anyone ready, willing and able to work. The pay would be set to a certain wage and we could let the deficit float. This would promote price stability (employment and not unemployment would be the stabilizer). We could also stabilize the price of labor and wages in the private sector would be directly tied to the job guarantee of government employment. If the government labor force become too large, taxes could be reduced, which would mean less government workers and decreased government spending as the private sector hired these workers. The idea being to create a national buffer stock.

Food for thought....

A balanced budget doesn't make any sense

Neither does a 4% deficit, this late in the "recovery".

That's the problem, our policy makers went the monetary policy route.

$7 trillion in added debt is fiscal policy.

We need to boost aggregate demand and grow GDP through fiscal policy.

10% annual deficits? 15%? More?

Any talk of fiscal responsibility should start with public purpose. We should spend to achieve public purpose. It’s fiscally ignorant and irresponsible to consider a deficit reduction plan when we run a persistent trade deficit and output gap. Any such plan constructed will remove net financial assets from the private sector as long as it’s pursued. If it’s pursued on a long enough time frame, the decreased financial assets will further worsen the output gap by decreasing aggregate demand and this will result in both a deterioration of CAPITAL and LABOR. Then we have a situation of further degradation of productive capacity in the economy and the federal government’s ability to maintain some semblance of productive deficit spending which should be based around an overall output of serving public purpose and social value.

It’s fiscally ignorant and irresponsible to consider a deficit reduction plan when we run a persistent trade deficit and output gap.

It’s fiscally ignorant and irresponsible to have a deficit of 4% of GDP, 5 years into the recovery.

Any such plan constructed will remove net financial assets from the private sector as long as it’s pursued.

Because the only way for private financial assets to grow is through huge government deficits? That's funny.

Then we have a situation of further degradation of productive capacity in the economy and the federal government’s ability to maintain some semblance of productive deficit spending

Sounds like our current situation. Plenty of deficit spending, not very productive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have to think in terms of accounting. The 17 trillion of US public debt consists of liabilities of the federal government. These liabilities are assets to the non-government sector. For every liability, there's a corresponding asset.

We can think of it another way: US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy. It's made up of private wealth and any and all interest payments are considered private income. It boils down to double-entry bookkeeping at the Federal Reserve.

We need fewer federal government liabilities and more private sector assets.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

Like I tried to explain to Mr. Zappa, the national debt is nothing more than a boatload of dollar balances over at the FED. We call these dollar deposits, which are like savings' accounts, 'Treasury securities'. In the bond business, we refer to them as securities' accounts, along with 'reserve accounts'. These reserve accounts are similar to checking accounts. These securities' accounts, reserve accounts and the actual total cash in circulation make up the total net dollar-based savings of the global economy. When the federal government spends more than it receives back in taxes, those additional dollars it spends first start off in our checking accounts, and a certain amount end up in securities' accounts over the FED.

Thanks for the un-needed lesson. Let's try again.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

 

[Kimura]

It’s fiscally ignorant and irresponsible to have a deficit of 4% of GDP, 5 years into the recovery.

Yeah, it was done through QE, Treasury and FED facilities, etc. w/ a minuscule stimulus. We probably need 3-4 trillion for infrastructure, transportation, R&D, education, health care, nuclear power, green energy, etc. We can get the middle class back on track, improve social outcomes, and really get the economy close to full capacity and full employment. Private sector firms simply can't do it.

Because the only way for private financial assets to grow is through huge government deficits? That's funny.

For the umpteenth time, austerity can't work in the US because your fetish, which we can call budget surpluses, balanced budgets or whatever, can be defined as tax revenue which exceeds spending. This will destroy net financial assets in the private sector, unless we can REPLACE these financial assets by running a trade surplus. A persistent and constant loss of net financial assets in the private sector cannot be sustained. This is what fuels credit bubbles, recessions, depressions, and an eventual road back to deficit spending.

For a complex and large economy like the US, that runs BOTH a trade deficit and large output gap, which is demonstrated by high unemployment, your deficit reduction fetish leaning towards budget surpluses and austerity will only push the economy into recession or depression.

Sounds like our current situation. Plenty of deficit spending, not very productive.

Capitalism is the best of all systems thus far, but it has inherent problems, such as capitalist economies not being structured to handle full employment. This can be remedied through policy decisions, so we can fix some of the flaws, which other nations have done a better job at addressing.

The only real crisis we face is a failing economy and increasing inequality. We should pursue public policies which aid public purpose and get away from these current policies that create economic stagnation and destruction, such as austerity and other nonsensical polices based on ideologies with zero basis in reality.

 

[Kimura]

Thanks for the un-needed lesson. Let's try again.

Un-needed lesson? You're guy the claiming the government borrows its own fiat. Government bonds function to manage interest rates and drain excess reserves from the banking system. Has that sunk in yet? Before we move on, please tell me you're fully aware of this operational reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

So, you got nothing.

OK

Try me, I'll think of an example you can wrap your head around.

We're on a desert Island, there are only 2 enterprises. One manufactures products made from coconuts: food, clothing, sunscreen. The other is the local government, they buy dead fish heads.

Why is giving money to the government superior to buying products from the coconut guy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the un-needed lesson. Let's try again.

Un-needed lesson? You're guy the claiming the government borrows its own fiat. Government bonds function to manage interest rates and drain excess reserves from the banking system. Has that sunk in yet? Before we move on, please tell me you're fully aware of this operational reality.

Yes, un-needed lesson.

You're guy the claiming the government borrows its own fiat.

They clearly do. They don't have to, but they do.

Back to your claim.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?