Two things:
- if you owe the bank $34,000, it’s your problem; if you owe the bank $34,000,000,000,000, it’s the bank’s problem.
- its a big club, and you’re not in it.
That’s a lot of zeros, when written like that
Yes, and it is the correct number of zeros to use. I find it helps to put things into scope. “Trillion” is an abstract magnitude to most people. Writing it out numerically makes it clear how absolutely enormous the number is.
putting people in debt is how people with already too much money make even more money from people who never had enough
Micro-economics vs. macro-economics
I strongly encourage people who still think like OP to look up what happened the last time we paid off the national debt.
…link?
Andrew Jackson sold off enough Native American land to cause a real estate bubble, and between that and other things started a bank run, and the kind of people that think they’ll win the shell game pretend it’s because non-productive debt is good, and the problem was elimination of debt, not how it was done and other circumstances (among them being on a gold standard so you can actually do a bank run)
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-national-debt-reaches-zero-dollars
International associations managing countries credit scores are all located in the usa. Therefore the incentive to valorize debt.
if it makes you feel any better you’d go to prison if you decided to run a ponzi scheme… unless you’re a bank, that is
Wait a bank is a Ponzi scheme
Not literally. I bet the poster notices the overlap between ponzi and fractional reserve lending and doesn’t care about the differences
Which is?
Bank is legal because… reasons…
Lota of differences but the key is: A ponzi scheme pays returns out of future investment. Fractional reserve lending pays returns from interest collected on investments.
Are you immortal? Do you have an income vastly higher than the servicing cost of that debt? Do you owe the large a majority of that debt to yourself? Are you able to, if push came to shove, tell your external creditors to go fuck themselves and dare them to so much as try to collect on the debt you don’t feel like paying? If you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, you aren’t the US and have a debt situation that has absolutely nothing in common with the US debt.
US debt is currently higher than their GDP. Even if they could leverage the entire country into only paying debt (they can’t), it would take over a year to pay off. At the current average interest rate of ~3%, that’s enough to pay for the entirety of NASA’s budget five times over.
The last time US debt was greater than their GDP was the second world war.
…or, since the federal reserve creates money, they could do quite literally 100 strokes on a keyboard at the FED and repay the debt. A state doesn’t fund itself through taxes, taxes serve many purposes but funding a state isn’t one of them.
Ignoring, for a moment, the inherent and fundamental differences between an individual and a state…
…in my late 20s and early 30s I bought a new car.
At the time, that car cost more than I had in my accounts plus my other possessions at the time. In fairness, my annual income was more than the total cost of the car, buuuut I also was carrying tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt as well, meaning my overall total debt was significantly higher than my annual income, or my “personal GDP” if you will.
Yet when I applied for my car loan, it came through with easy approval and I even qualified for the best possible interest rate.
Why? Because I’ve always paid on my debts adequately and promptly.
Nobody bats an eye when a couple buys a house that costs more than what they can cover with their combined income in one year. Why? Because that’s an arbitrary and unrealistic yard stick of comparison and nobody expects them to pay off a house in a year. They’re able to buy their house and live in it immediately, and pay for it incrementally, over time, as they earn over the coming years because of debt. And the bank is willing to lend the money because they’ll make money in the long run through interest.
Similarly, it’s unreasonable to imply that the US shouldn’t carry more debt than it’s GDP because the two metrics aren’t directly linked in any way. And since the US has excellent credit worthiness, that debt is far safer than the bank’s loan to the homebuyers. And the US gains access to borrowed funds by setting it’s own interest rates through the Fed, which tells lenders exactly how much they’ll make in interest if they let the US government borrow some of their money.
And since the US is a safer bet than homebuyers, that’s why home interest rates are higher than the rate at the Fed: if they were equal, banks would never lend to homebuyers since they could get the same return by lending to the government. So instead, they set their own, higher rates for homebuyers, to account for the higher risk of lending to a party who has a much higher likelihood of default.
They said service the debt, not pay off the whole thing. For an analogy, your whole mortgage being less than your annual salary isn’t a requirement; your monthly mortgage payment being a fraction of your monthly salary is.
Do not forget that you are also the very entity that hands out the currency you hold your debt in.
It’s like Dwight printing IOUs for Schrutebucks
Wait till you learn about how the stock market works. Everyone with a share actually just holds an IOU in the DTCC.
It’s all built on bullshit
I remember users on another platform went into full rage mode when I said the stock market was just legalized gambling, telling me how SAFE!!! IT IS IF YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!>
Okay. Black Friday and Too Big to Fail only happened in my dreams.
If you had 34 trillion in debt and a centuries-long history of making on-time payments, you’d have a perfect credit score.
Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol
Hey remember that one time where the country’s credit rating got downgraded due to political idiocy?
Pepperidge Farm remember.
Credit rating also depends on credit to debt ratio. You want to keep it below 35%, so the US wouldn’t need a credit line of $100T or more to have great credit.
I think sovereign debt would work like an AmEx Platimum with “no fixed limit”, which makes makes the algorithm ignore utilization.
Don’t forget being the only issuer of the currency you get indebted in. If I could get indebted in a currency I create myself, believe me I would
Articles and posts like this really just exist for conservatives to shout that we need to stop federal spending and cut out “unimportant” things like Dept of Education, as described in Project 2025.
The problem is that debt is good. It enables us to pay for infrastructure projects and services. It doesn’t work like a household budget…not on the scale of international economies…because money “in the bank” is money that’s not in circulation.
When money is not in circulation, it’s not being used to pay for goods and services…it’s just…sitting there being hoarded.
You all complain about Musk hoarding a few hundred billions. Imagine if the debt were in the opposite direction and the government had $34T sitting in the bank doing nothing.
And anyone can buy Treasury debt. In fact, last year it was an AMAZING return on investment for anyone that bought into it and holds into the debt for a few years. One of the safest places anybody could put money to earn a return (behind a HYSA at FDIC insured banks).
When money is not in circulation, it’s not being used to pay for goods and services…it’s just…sitting there being hoarded.
This is why I think the velocity of money should be a key economic indicator. Money moving around and doing work is what makes an economy better for everyone. When it starts to pool in the economy it slows down and benefits only a few.
This is another thing I learned from “Making Money”
Fully agreed, the whole “Debt bad! Deficit evil!” trope is just neoliberal propaganda against public expenditure, which translates into a weakening of the welfare state
What about staying at 0? Why is debt better than no debt AND no surplus?
The US govt basically has a perfect credit score. They have almost infinite payment history and almost infinite available credit.
“Bankers hate him! Get an 850 credit score and dictate the terms and interest rate of your own debt using this one simple trick.”
Credit scores require you to get some kind of debt. This is because it’s not a score of your financial health. It’s a score of how reliably you repay your debt.
have you considered printing your own money?
Yes I have but then I relized hey that’s illegal
Printing imitation US dollars is illegal. Printing Varven Bux is legal! They may not be accepted everywhere, though.
Money = reputation
So I have a money for putting out easily? That tracks, actually.
It’s not even about reputation, it’s mostly about taxes. You enforce the private sector using the state’s monopoly of violence to pay tributes in a currency that you create. This way, when there are transactions in the private sector, the main currency that people will want to use (provided it’s stable enough) is the one that lets them pay their taxes later. You can’t pay taxes with dollars in Hungary, which makes Hungarian people use Hungarian currency instead of Chinese Yuan even if the Chinese Yuan is a much stronger currency.
And yes, the state having the monopoly of violence and enforcing taxes is a good thing, before anyone accuses me of being an anarchocapitalist.
Imitation is illegal… Smh why does nobody just print real money? Am I the only one seeing this loophole?!
On a serious note. Are there any countries without any national debt? Because if not then clearly capitalism is broken right?
Well, that’s a misleading title. All the countries in their list have some debt, just less than most.
All countries carry some debt, because they need to show a history of reliably making payments on that debt in case they need to borrow money in the future for whatever reason. Not all countries, however, run massive deficits every year.
I’m not the biggest fan of capitalism myself but the existence of debt does not mean it is broken. Debt is a mechanism to allow for solid investments, e.g. building infrastructure or schools that will create a net positive in the (far) future.
Germany for example has enacted a Schuldenbremse (debt-break) in 2009 and forbids our states to take on new debt and limits the debt taken on the federal level to a minisule percentage of the GDP. Our infrastructure is currently slowly but noticeably crumbling away, bridges are getting closed for heavy traffic and experts say many of them have become irreparable due to missing maintenance and need to be fully rebuild in a few years. The local military barracks are in such a desolate condition that the soldiers need to drive two towns over to shower. We might not take on financial debt, but an infrastructure debt that will demand an even bigger toll on us.If 90% of the countries in the world are in debt and corporations have more money than god, then clearly the system isn’t ideal.
$34T is insane for one single country.
As for infrastructure, proper taxation of corporations would raise more revenue to fix such things. If Amazon is contributing to the breakdown of roads due to all the couriers then they should be paying more tax.
Look at the water companies in the UK. Paid out their shareholders for decades and did nothing to improve the infrastructure which is now likely to end up with them being nationalised after they’ve looted what they could.
I’m as much of a leftist as you are, and I’m sorry if I sound a bit pretentious here but the analysis you’re doing of debt is wrong.
States generally create their own currency, and generally get indebted (i.e. issue state bonds) in their own currency. You can see how a state that creates its own money doesn’t really need debt to be able to pay for stuff, debt is just a political decision, sometimes misguided by people who don’t really understand it properly, sometimes properly guided by experts.
A state doesn’t need taxes to fund itself either. If it needs to build roads, it can literally create the currency to hire the workers to extract the resources, plan the roads, and build them. Taxes have many purposes such as removing money from the private sector to prevent or reduce inflation, disincentivizing certain behaviours (for example tobacco taxes), lowering inequality (for example progressive income taxes), or even making people use your currency instead of another (people in the private sector will end up using your currency if they are forced to pay taxes in that currency).
Taxing companies and rich people is useful because you place the burden of reducing money for inflation purposes on them instead of on the lower income people, and therefore you reduce inequality, so I obviously support at the very least heavy taxation of income and wealth of private individuals and companies, but the state really doesn’t need taxes to fund itself since it creates its own currency and pays in that currency.
So I preface by saying finance isn’t my forte, but I would like to raise a few thoughts I had whilst reading this.
The first is that the state can just create more currency to pay for things, which to my understanding is not always the case, if you saturate the market with your currency it becomes less valuable and we end up with runaway inflation.
The other point is on the no need for taxes and that we tax the richest and the corporations to remove some of the money supply, clearly this isn’t something that happens as taxes for both of these is rarely raised at the same rate it is for regular people.
Finally, we have most people, in the western world at least, living literal pay check to pay check whilst the likes of Microsoft have gone from less than $2B to over $3B in a few years. The same can be said for Nvidia and many many more.
Edit: I guess my point is, just because this is how things work doesn’t mean things shouldn’t change. Clearly something is broken.
That sort of thing can happen in extreme situations. Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany are the most prominent examples. Both examples involved not having enough stuff. When there aren’t enough necessary goods to buy and people have plenty of money you’re going to get inflation. Using the right combo of subsidies, government run production, purchase quantity limits, reserves, vouchers, and price fixing you can ensure the supply is stable and eliminate inflation even if there’s lots of money.
That’s true. That happens because people are stuck in the narrative of the government needing a balanced budget, just like a household. It also happens because the owners and the corpos use all their money and power to ensure workers pay taxes and thus decrease worker money and power.
Yeah, if the population was educated on MMT the ability to bring corpos to heel would be significantly increased. People arguing for it are fundamentally arguing for a change in how we think about money.
if you saturate the market with your currency it becomes less valuable and we end up with runaway inflation.
Notice how I didn’t say that the state should create infinite currency, I’m just saying that the limit isn’t based on taxation. And funnily enough, if you look at basically all inflationary episodes in developed countries over the past century, they’ve happened as a consequence of problems with the supply of goods, not as a consequence of excess currency creation. 2022 inflation? Energy prices and supply chain bottlenecks as a consequence of Ukraine invasion and post-covid effects on production. 1970s inflation? Fuel prices… Really, I encourage you to look up a graph of inflation for, say, the USA, over the past century, to look at the inflation peaks, and to make a Google search “crisis of 19XX”. You’ll find that the inflation was in basically all instances prefaced by a big external event, and not by money creation. Moreover, many of these inflation events happen simultaneously in countries such as the US, UK, Japan and Germany, all of which have different central banks, different currencies, and different rates of currency creation.
Also, there’s countless examples of vast increases in money supply without inflation. In the decade of 2010-2020, the EU has created VAST amounts of euros with basically no meaningful inflation. You can look up the Euro monetary mass M2 or M3 over the past decade, you’ll find a huge boom, without any effect on inflation. Again, all of this isn’t to say there isn’t a practical limit to how much you should create before destabilizing the economy, just that the limit is absolutely not imposed by how much you’re collecting in taxes, and it depends a lot, for example, on which part of the capitalist boom-bust cycle you are. Another argument for this, is that money creation doesn’t have to be just that, it can imply an increase in the amount of available goods and services. As a stupid example, the US government could open a state-funded iron mine and a refinery, hiring all the employees with newly minted currency, and that would effectively increase the total amount of goods and services in circulation, which can balance out the supposed inflationary effect of the currency creation.
About taxes not being currently used practically to reduce inequality, I agree, but that’s not a point against the nature of taxation, that’s a point against the current decision of who we’re taxing, what for, and how much. I absolutely agree with ramping up the taxes of huge multinational companies and their directives. It’s just, if we see taxes not as a necessity to fund the state’s activity, but as a necessary tool to reallocate money in the economy from rich people to poor people and to create a welfare state and a great infrastructure, it’s much easier to explain why Amazon should pay 90% taxes and your average low-paid worker only 10%.
As for your last point with inequality between companies’ income and that of people, I couldn’t agree more, I’m a hardcore leftist and I want to reduce wealth inequality extremely, again, I’m not arguing for lowering taxes “since they’re not necessary”, I’m arguing for reallocating the taxes in a much more progressive way to disincentivize certain behaviors such as speculation, and to reduce inequality between the richest and the poorest.
Thanks for the civilized discussion, it’s good to be able to actually discuss this stuff.
No. Thank you for giving me some food for thought and areas to research to further my understanding, rather than talking down to me due to my lack of knowledge on the macro economics of the world.
I really do appreciate you taking the time.
To be fair, it’s not you lacking knowledge, it’s a fundamental problem in the field of economics, which because of political reasons, has been dominated for the past decades by neoliberalism. The problem is that neoliberalism reaches conclusions that have been falsified by experimental data in several occasions, but since it serves the ideology of the elites, it’s peddled constantly in media by prominent “economist” propagandists. If you’re interested into the topic and this modern, more empirical vision of the economy, the field is called “Modern Monetary Theory” or MMT. There’s a documentary released recently about the basics of it, applied to the US, called “Finding The Money”, and I can also recommend the YouTube channel called “Unlearning Economics”, which isn’t MMT per se but it’s very keen on treating economics through empyrism.
You missed the biggest flaw in the “money creation = inflation” argument. That would be Japan. They’ve been printing money full tilt for the last couple decades, and are just barely staving off deflation
Interesting, I’ll look up the monetary mass of Japan over time, thanks!
I think you entirely missed the point haha
No, if anything it shows capitalism is working. When you can increase or tighten money supply (ie when you can print and shred money) debt isn’t what you think it is. A state with money issuance powers is not a household.
I can thoroughly recommend “The Deficit Myth” book by Stephanie Kelton, if you wish to understand modern monetary policy better.
https://youtu.be/1JpZZcD8C4M?si=efc3KJCUSP9k5kP4
And to answer your specific question, there are countries with very low debt, but that’s usually due to either not being able to “borrow” money (again, borrowing doesn’t always mean what we would think as borrowing when you can issue your own money), being locked to another currency (Denmark is a great example - amazing economy and locked to the euro) or having a large generation of wealth (typically oil). Larger countries can issue debt more easily.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/1JpZZcD8C4M?si=efc3KJCUSP9k5kP4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What do you mean by Denmark being locked to the euro? It has it’s own currency
Denmark has not introduced the euro, following a rejection by referendum in 2000, but the Danish krone is pegged closely to the euro (with the rate 7.46038±2.25%) in ERM II, the EU’s exchange rate mechanism.
So if euro gets stronger, so does the krone. If euro drops, so does the krone.
Okay, makes sense
<giggle.gif>
Not really. They’ve got a version of the euro, called kroners, which allows Danes to believe they have their own currency. They are locked into an exchange rate band (extremely tight) which means the Danish central bank has to follow every decision the ECB takes within minutes). And this makes complete sense, in that it’s a compromise that’s edible by voters (maintaining the illusion that Denmark didn’t adopt the euro) and edible by business (allowing businesses in Denmark to participate fully in the common market).
And that’s one of the reasons Denmark has such small national debt - they can’t really invent new money because it would break the bond with the euro. So the Danish budget is sort of a “household budget” in that in contrast to, say, Sweden, they cannot create money (meaningfully) and the books have to balance (which they do; lots of oil, Novo Nordisk, Maersk, Vestas and a few other big international plays who still pay a majority of their tax in Denmark obviously helps a lot).
The debt we’re talking about here (as opposed to deficits) is practically all bond sales, isn’t it?
Yeah. It’s another form of creation of money. It’s a useful tool for some things, like the central bank being able to control interest rates in the economy, as shown during the recent inflationary episode.
Yes more or less, that is indeed how the central bank creates money most of the time; the government creates a piece of paper that says “IOU 100k and I’ll pay you 5% interest on it for 20 years and then I’ll buy it back from you in 20 years” (that’s a bond), which they sell on the open market, at auction (where the variable element is the interest rate someone is willing to accept). When the central bank wishes to increase the money supply they buy government bonds on the open market (ie from other holders, rarely from the government directly) by materialising money out of thin air.
When they wish to shrink the money supply they sell their government bonds and destroys the money that they receive from the sale.
I heard that the us still has good credit because although it owes trillions, it is worth quadrillions (all lands and assets), so not really a concern
Hey bud, guess what? The gov don’t hand out a credit score, the banks do.
This entire meme is just OP admitting they don’t know how finance works in the US.
It’s a meme not a dissertation on finance.
From one pedant to another, you’ve gone to far this time.
Crypto
Unstable, and mostly used for speculation or illegal activity. Ew.
for now
Forever until a powerful state starts to charge taxes in crypto.
Technically, at least where I live in Canada, you have to pay taxes on crypto income and capital gains. It’s possible for goverments to track crypto transactions.
That being said, if you think normal fiat currencies are without crimes and illegal activities, you’re kinda stupid.
I’m not talking about the current way, I’m talking about the possibility of a privacy-focused crypto, issued by the state, where transactions can be made private with the Blockchain. This crypto, as it would be used for normal transactions, wouldn’t have more variability or speculation than the variability and speculation in converting US Dollars to UK Pounds. The post talks in hypotheticals, I do too.
I don’t think fiat currency isn’t used for illegal activity, I think crypto is mostly not used for normal transactions.
How much does the USA have in assets? I’m willing to bet more than $34,000,000,000,000.00.
They could sell Wyoming to Canada, that’d be alright with me.
Canada couldn’t afford it, their monopoly money is worth almost nothing.
