US Debt Thread

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
This is sort of a spinoff from GrGr's Social Security Thread.
It's the topic we all hate to talk about but should get some attention.
DEBT...every country has it.

what does it mean?
does it matter?
at what point does it matter?
how much is too much?
how to stop the cycle?
etc.

Here's some sources.

Current US Debt: Here (7.6 Trillion)
Social Security reform will not help. The plan is already running a 1 trillion dollar deficit.

Here
Debt Overtaking Not Just
U.S. Households, But National GDP
by Richard Freeman

The first part of this analysis was published in last week's EIR, Feb. 6, 2004, and is available to subscribers to Electronic Intelligence Weekly. Figures for this article are likewise available to EIW subscribers.

The debt load on the U.S. economy has spiralled wildly out of control in recent years: Americans are now taking extraordinary and unsustainable measures to pay that debt, undermining their personal and national existence. The first part of this study documented that the dimensions of the debt reached a level perversely unique in world history. Between Dec. 31, 2000 and Dec. 31 of 2003, EIR has projected that total U.S. indebtedness rose from $28.80 trillion to $36.85 trillion, an increase of more than $8 trillion, or 28%, in only three years. This debt is grinding up households, manufacturing plants, farms, and small businesses.

While the Bush-Cheney Administration has attempted to focus attention on its tax cuts?which are insanely destructive, lowering tax revenue and economic activity?it has actually been the debt expansion which is the "characteristic" of the administration's actions (the 9-10% annual rate of expansion of indebtedness dates from only weeks before this administration took office on Jan. 21, 2001). For purposes of comparison, in the period 2000-03, the dollar amount of the "Bush-Cheney" tax cuts did not equal one-tenth of the total amount of debt expansion (household, business, and government) that was pumped into the economy. The administration has been totally addicted to the debt expansion to prevent an economic-financial collapse that would have been far more severe?in fact, bottomless?than what is occurring right now.

This debt explosion has been engineered in conjunction with the wild money-printing policies of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. No longer capable of producing its own physical existence, the United States, following a "Roman" imperial policy, is importing huge quantities of physical goods from around the world to sustain itself. This total package, a massive wreck, is what passes for a U.S. economy.

This debt is actually driven by the post-industrial society policy, which the Wall Street-City of London financier oligarchy imposed upon the United States in the mid-1960s. The policy destroyed manufacturing, agriculture, and infrastructure, while building a gigantic financial bubble, which has sucked the underlying physical economy dry.

However, there are physical limits to this debt-pyramiding. In order to offset falling living standards, millions of households have built up debt to pay for housing, clothing, medical bills, furniture, and even food; and to counteract a contracting economy, many manufacturing firms and farms have had to borrow money to keep from going under, not only for new equipment, raw material supplies, and so forth, but even to pay payroll. Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche has shown, through his conception of the "Triple Curve" collapse function (see p. 42), that the larger the financial aggregates?which include the debt?the more they ravage the physical economy, making the nation and its households less able to support human existence, or the debt itself.

LaRouche has advanced a decisive solution: Put the world financial system through bankruptcy reorganization, in order to write off tens of trillions of dollars of this debt and other obligations, and replace the bankrupt system with a growth-vectored New Bretton Woods monetary-financial system.
Debt to GDP Ratio

The debt crisis is highlighted by the relationship of debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP): How much indebtedness is there in the American economy, per unit of GDP? This process can be conceptualized in two ways. First, since the debt has to be paid out of the economy's output: How much GDP exists, from which the debt can be serviced? (The GDP is not an accurate measure of the economy's performance, but it is something against which debt can be compared, which gives a consistent series for comparison over time.) The second way to conceive of the relationship of debt to GDP, is how much debt is required to move a unit of GDP. In a well-ordered society, there will be some debt, whose purpose is to facilitate the building of the economy, such as great infrastructure projects of one to two generations. In such an economy, the debt to GDP ratio will be reasonable, and should be relatively stable over decades. However, in a speculative economy, the debt to GDP ratio will be continuously rising. That is, it becomes more difficult, and in one sense, more expensive in terms of debt, to cause the movement of an unit of GDP.

Figure 1 shows the ratio of the increment in the dollar volume of the U.S. economy's debt, to the increment of the dollar size of Gross Domestic Product. Throughout the 1970s, for every dollar of increase in GDP, there was $1.75 increase in debt; throughout the 1990s, for every dollar of increase in GDP, there was $3.64 increase in GDP. But for the period of 2001-03, every dollar increase in GDP required an increase in debt of $7.11. This is double the 1990s' ratio, and four times that of the 1970s. Thus, this period represents a singularity, indicating that past relationships have broken down, and that a new ordering process has become dominant, one governed by hyperinflation and speculative frenzy.

However, a more precise measure would be to compare debt to the productive portion of GDP, which consists of the productive output of the manufacturing, agriculture, construction, mining, public utilities, and transportation sectors. The productive sectors of the economy represent man's alternation of nature, to produce goods that are consumed by man to produce higher cultural and material levels of development. According to U.S. Commerce Department data, the productive portion of GDP is less than 30% of total GDP. The productive portion of the economy produces the actual wealth from which, ultimately, the debt is paid off.

Still, the Commerce Department's category of the "manufacturing portion of GDP" has significant problems. The Commerce Department reports the "manufacturing sector of GDP" in dollar, not output terms; and it adjusts it by the notorious "Quality Adjustment Factor," which artificially overstates production. Still, the productive sector of GDP brings us closer to what is actually happening.

Figure 2 shows that throughout the 1970s, for every dollar of increase in productive GDP?which we here call real GDP?there was a $4.25 increase in debt; throughout the 1990s, for every dollar of increase in real GDP, there was a $13.90 increase in debt. However, in the 2001-03 period, when real GDP, even in its statistically massaged form, stagnated while debt grew hyperbolically, each dollar of increment in real GDP required a $63.51 increase in debt. The representation goes "off the charts": It defines a singularity, where the system breaks down.

This signifies something else: The U.S. economy's current indebtedness can never be paid off out of the real productive portion of the economy.
Debt-Service Payments

There is a second crucial phase of the process.

EIR has determined the annual debt service on America's debt, for each year since 1980. The annual debt service consists of that sum of the interest payment, plus a part of the principal amount of the debt, that must be paid each year. Failure, by an individual or an institution, to pay the debt service owed, leaves him in default.

The three principal sectors of the economy?households, business, and government (including Federal, state, and local government)?owe debt service on their debt. Each sector owes different types of debt, with different maturities, and different interest rates. In determining the debt service, EIR consulted and cross-checked with more than a dozen economists and experts from U.S. government agencies and private institutions.

The more deeply America fell into debt, the more its annual debt service grew. Figure 3 demonstrates that in 1980, the annual debt service was $1.29 trillion; by 2003, it had reached $8.09 trillion, a six-fold increase. (Of the $8.09 trillion in debt service in 2001, the interest portion was more than $2 trillion.)

Figure 4 compares annual debt service to America's annual GDP. (Although, as stated above, GDP is an inaccurate measure of the economy, it can be used for purposes of comparison.) In 1960?not shown on this graph?annual debt service was roughly equivalent to 31% of GDP; in 1980, this had risen to 46.3% of GDP; and by 2003, debt service had leapt to 73.9% of GDP, which is more than double the 1960 level.

It will be noted that the ratio of debt service to GDP has been in roughly the same range since 2000 (in fact, it has fallen slightly). This represents Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's decision to cut interest rates 11 times in 2001, in order, in part, to make lending and borrowing much easier. However, once interest rates spike upward from their very low rates, the debt service will rise, and the debt-service-to-GDP ratio will shoot upward even higher.
Debt Service Cannot Be Paid

But this debt service of $8.09 trillion and rising, cannot be paid. Were it to be paid out of GDP, it would require siphoning off three-quarters of the national product. Moreover, it would require siphoning off the equivalent of 2.5 times the productive portion of GDP (real GDP). The debt service requirements are so large that they could not be met: There would not be enough GDP left over to sustain human existence, by providing the market-basket requirements of enough clothing, housing, food, etc., and a sufficient amount to pay the debt.

A system is bankrupt when the debt-servicing requirements exceed its wealth generation, so that an individual or entity cannot pay back the debt service and meet the needs of human existence at the same time. The United States is bankrupt. Some of the debt will be "rolled over" i.e., refinanced with new debt, which swells the debt bubble even further. However, the Wall Street financiers can, and do, take measures to collect a significant portion of the debt service through extraction: They loot the population through fierce austerity; they do not replace run-down plant and equipment, etc. This is destroying the underlying physical economy upon which life depends.

As the world financial disintegration increases instabilities, a spike in U.S. interest rates, a wave of defaults on over-priced homes, will ignite the $36.85 trillion debt into conflagration. The debt bubble has built into it the causes of its own destruction. The debt bubble's upward flight is nearing an end.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?

<-----Don't know, just curious.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?

<-----Don't know, just curious.
Ask and you shall recieve.

Link
In order to calculate the "net worth" of a company, one must subtract the company's liabilities from its assets. As you can imagine, it is extremely complicated to put together a balance sheet and calculate a net worth for an entity as large and as complex as the U.S. government.
The Treasury Department is responsible for compiling such a balance sheet. The Treasury's Consolidated Financial Statements for 1995 can be found in the "Financial Review," Section IX.

Assets
The 1995 report attempts to calculate the total assets of the federal government. The government's main assets consist of property and equipment, cash, investments and inventories. All totaled, the government has $1.298 trillion in assets.

Liabilities
The liabilities of the federal government were estimated to be $5.810 trillion. These liabilities include debt held as U.S. securities, federal employee pensions and actuarial liabilities, as well as other moneys owed.

Net Worth
Net worth is defined as assets minus liabilities. According to the 1995 report, the net worth of the U.S. government is a negative $4.513 trillion. Theoretically, if the government were to sell all of its assets to pay down its debt, it would not be able to pay its current obligations.

Future Obligations
According to a 1993 report commissioned by the Treasury Department and conducted by the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen &amp; Company, the net worth figure does not take into account many of the future obligations of the U.S. government. Currently, the future liabilities of the federal government total $20.7 trillion. This translates to almost $80,000 owed for every man, woman and child in the U.S.A. These liabilities include:

* $7.6 trillion, which represents the present value of Social Security payments
* $5.9 trillion in contingent liabilities, such as rents on land, veterans' benefits, federal pensions and obligations to independent agencies
* $3.6 trillion, which represents the present value of Medicare's (Part A) Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
* $3.2 trillion in public debt held as U.S. securities (excludes debt held by Federal Reserve)
* $0.4 trillion in commitments or moneys owed for various other services rendered
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?

<-----Don't know, just curious.

"...For Uncle Sam's debt to the rest of the world already amounts to more than a third of his annual domestic production and is still growing. That alone already makes his debt economically and politically never repayable, even if he wanted to, which he does not. Uncle Sam's domestic, eg credit-card, debt is almost 100% of gross domestic product (GDP) and consumption, including that from China. Uncle Sam's federal debt is now US$7.5 trillion, of which all but $1 trillion was built up in the past three decades, the last $2 trillion in the past eight years, and the last $1 trillion in the past two years. Alas, that costs more than $300 billion a year in interest, compared with, for example, the $15 billion spent annually on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But no worries: Congress just raised the debt ceiling to $8.2 trillion. To help us visualize, $1 trillion tightly packed up in $1,000 bills would create a pile 100km high.

But nearly half is owed to foreigners. All Uncle Sam's debt, including private household consumer credit-card, mortgage etc debt of about $10 trillion, plus corporate and financial, with options, derivatives and the like, and state and local government debt comes to an unvisualizable, indeed unimaginable, $37 trillion, which is nearly four times Uncle Sam's GDP."



Asia Times: Why the Emperor has no clothes
 

Veramocor

Senior member
Mar 2, 2004
389
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Reminded me of a very old thread I posted.

44 Trillion shortfall

Get SS fixed first, then work on medicare. Anyone have a current link to the pdf that is gone?


Big difference alchemize. National debt is actually owed, Social security is just promised. Cutting SS to the 70% level in 2042 may not be liked but it can be done. National debt has already been spent. Yes you could default but that would be a bad thing.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,599
90
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: GrGr
...All Uncle Sam's debt, including private household consumer credit-card, mortgage etc debt of about $10 trillion, plus corporate and financial, with options, derivatives and the like, and state and local government debt comes to an unvisualizable, indeed unimaginable, $37 trillion, which is nearly four times Uncle Sam's GDP."...
that number is totally useless, your trying to lump govt debt with household debt? You could be counting the same dollar 10 times in some cases.

Govt loans money to bank at prime rate..
Bank adds a few percentage points, loans it to Credit Card company,
Credit card company adds a bunch of percentage points, loans it to a consumer..

thats 3 loans at minimum, and in may cases its a lot more complicated than that (multiple banks, and multiple susidiaries of a credit card company, underwriters, etc)

Add it all up and if the consumer spent $100, thats $100 total debt. period. Not the $100 the consumer owns, + the $80 the CC owes, plus the $78 the bank owes, etc.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
that number is totally useless, your trying to lump govt debt with household debt?

[/quote]


That is part of what I asked for, Train. :)

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?


Now, I just need the networth part.....

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Train
that number is totally useless, your trying to lump govt debt with household debt?


That is part of what I asked for, Train. :)

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?


Now, I just need the networth part.....

[/quote]

$45Trillion
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Train
that number is totally useless, your trying to lump govt debt with household debt?


That is part of what I asked for, Train. :)

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What is the relationship between Total Us debt (Household, business, and government) and Total Us networth?


Now, I just need the networth part.....

$45Trillion[/quote]

Ok, I am a little slow with this economic stuff.


Net worth is the difference between debt and assets, right?

So, I guess what I am really after is the total cumulative value of the assets of Us.(Household, business, and government)


If the networth of just households and non profits is $45Trillion, then the value of the assets in the
(Household, business, and government) equation must be astronomical.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
The fact that the article is on LaRouche's website makes me cringe.

Anyway, the article leaves a lot to be desired. It breaks out facts and figures without providing any balance of the whys and wherefors, and uses some wonky methodologies as well.

Like Train said, lumping government debt and household debt into the same equation isn't being very kosher. How much has household debt increased in the past few years? Probably quite significantly since the rate of home ownership is the highest it's ever been and more people than ever are holding mortgages. Of course it's increased. Wouldn't it be better to make a debt to earnings (income) ratio comparison? Seems like that would tell us more significant information.

And one of his points is made thusly:

Figure 2 shows that throughout the 1970s, for every dollar of increase in productive GDP?which we here call real GDP?there was a $4.25 increase in debt; throughout the 1990s, for every dollar of increase in real GDP, there was a $13.90 increase in debt. However, in the 2001-03 period, when real GDP, even in its statistically massaged form, stagnated while debt grew hyperbolically, each dollar of increment in real GDP required a $63.51 increase in debt. The representation goes "off the charts": It defines a singularity, where the system breaks down.

Uh, yeah. Let's compare this thing well call "productive GDP" (a limited subset of the GDP that we know has been shrinking over the years, even though that's not necessarily a bad thing) from the 70s and 90s to a 2-year period when we were in a recession.

Then it goes through the debt service spiel and subsequently knifes itself by stating:

It will be noted that the ratio of debt service to GDP has been in roughly the same range since 2000 (in fact, it has fallen slightly). This represents Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's decision to cut interest rates 11 times in 2001, in order, in part, to make lending and borrowing much easier. However, once interest rates spike upward from their very low rates, the debt service will rise, and the debt-service-to-GDP ratio will shoot upward even higher.
Except a rise in interest rates tends to spur foriegn investment which will help strengthen the dollar on the inernational market. So there are tradeoffs as well, but these generally go unmentioned in the article.

Besides that, the article provides no meaningful long-term analysis of the trends nor mentions the changing face of the US economy over the last 4 decades or so.

Sorry, but I find it lacking in any real substantive matter. At least there's nothing here to wring your hands over. And as the 90s demonstrated, an economic boom can change things significantly. Hopefully we'll be able to sustain the next one in a more moderate fiscal fashion though.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Good points. I'm not familiar with this LaRouche guy...but he brings up good points about for every dollar of gdp increase, it costs several times more in debt.

Could you perhaps give your opinion to some of the questions i mentioned?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: jhu
according to the cia, we're not doing too bad.

Wow, I was expecting the US to rank much more poorly due to a large number of people always talking about this as if the US was alone. Seems like the US is right around Canada, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc. I wonder what these other countries are doing towards their problems and maybe we can learn from them as well.

Look at Japan - 154.60 % of GDP :Q
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: jhu
according to the cia, we're not doing too bad.

Wow, I was expecting the US to rank much more poorly due to a large number of people always talking about this as if the US was alone. Seems like the US is right around Canada, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc. I wonder what these other countries are doing towards their problems and maybe we can learn from them as well.

Look at Japan - 154.60 % of GDP :Q
I think the only reason the US is brought up is because it is an economic powerhouse. The largest GDP in the world and the debt has increased at an astounding rate.

Our Liberal Prime Minister has us on a roadmap to get to 40% or so by 2010. Meanwhile the US has gone from 1 to 8 trillion in just a matter of 2 decades.

By the end of 4 years, Bush intends to half the deficit. That is gonna be a lot of interest added to the debt. But you are right, every country has a debt and will continue to do so. What level is too high?...There's gotta be a spending limit.

Why doesnt the whole world just go on a huge spending spee if all money is free and doesnt matter. What is the significance of debt?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt


Why doesnt the whole world just go on a huge spending spee if all money is free and doesnt matter. What is the significance of debt?


We have some pretty good numbers to work with in this thread so that the little guy like me can understand the significance of the debt structure of this country.


We have the yearly income.

We have the Debt.

*Ahem* Just wish someone could find a link to the value of the assets. :(


Originally posted by: Stunt


Ask and you shall recieve.
;) ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Good points. I'm not familiar with this LaRouche guy...but he brings up good points about for every dollar of gdp increase, it costs several times more in debt.
He is often said to be the founder of Libertarianism, though others, including many Libertarians, claim he is nothing more than a former Marxist turned fascist.

You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ews_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Many of the points in the article could possibly be acceptable if they were supported by further data. As it stands they are like someone showing you an island and claiming it's a representation of the world.

Could you perhaps give your opinion to some of the questions i mentioned?
You could ask a 100 top economists your question and get 100 different asnswer to those questions.

imo, the answer to most of them is: We don't really know, we guess and hope for the best.

The only one that differs is:
how to stop the cycle?
If you mean the cycle of deficit spending, that won't happen. Neither should it stop.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Good points. I'm not familiar with this LaRouche guy...but he brings up good points about for every dollar of gdp increase, it costs several times more in debt.
He is often said to be the founder of Libertarianism, though others, including many Libertarians, claim he is nothing more than a former Marxist turned fascist.

You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ews_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Many of the points in the article could possibly be acceptable if they were supported by further data. As it stands they are like someone showing you an island and claiming it's a representation of the world.

Could you perhaps give your opinion to some of the questions i mentioned?
You could ask a 100 top economists your question and get 100 different asnswer to those questions.

imo, the answer to most of them is: We don't really know, we guess and hope for the best.

The only one that differs is:
how to stop the cycle?
If you mean the cycle of deficit spending, that won't happen. Neither should it stop.

Why not? Should it just follow slightly behind GDP or does that even matter?

Infinite debt?

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you mean the cycle of deficit spending, that won't happen. Neither should it stop.

Why not? Should it just follow slightly behind GDP or does that even matter?

Infinite debt?

I kind of agree with TLC on this.
Short term deficits imo are fine. As long as they are not out of control and unwarrented.

For example. If your country or state has a recession economically and you decide to not have a deficit by cutting education funding for example...you have a select group of people with poor education and will not contribute to the economic recovery.

Again. Tax cuts and two wars is not a warrented reason for deficits. It does seem like infinite money...just seems like nobody cares...

Why dont we all go on spending sprees if it doesnt matter.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Good points. I'm not familiar with this LaRouche guy...but he brings up good points about for every dollar of gdp increase, it costs several times more in debt.
He is often said to be the founder of Libertarianism, though others, including many Libertarians, claim he is nothing more than a former Marxist turned fascist.

You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ews_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Many of the points in the article could possibly be acceptable if they were supported by further data. As it stands they are like someone showing you an island and claiming it's a representation of the world.

Could you perhaps give your opinion to some of the questions i mentioned?
You could ask a 100 top economists your question and get 100 different asnswer to those questions.

imo, the answer to most of them is: We don't really know, we guess and hope for the best.

The only one that differs is:
how to stop the cycle?
If you mean the cycle of deficit spending, that won't happen. Neither should it stop.

Why not? Should it just follow slightly behind GDP or does that even matter?

Infinite debt?
You mean it doesn't?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib...ional-Debt-History.pdf

Currently, percentage of debt to GDP is lower than it ever was during the Clinton years.