America Debt Free by the End of the Decade

[MrB]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8469/8076759710_9f03ba338f_m.jpg

 

The dates at the bottom of the pic run from 1980 on the left to 2010 on the right.

[StubbleJumper]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

[Shane]

I think he is trying to point out that Clinton's plan not only didn't work, but we have gone the exact opposite route....

[StubbleJumper]

I think he is trying to point out that Clinton's plan not only didn't work, but we have gone the exact opposite route....

 

 

Ahhh, so he was merely pointing out the obvious?  I thought that there was some insight that completely escaped me

[NormR]

I think he was highlighting the correlation between presidents who had affairs with the staff and debt reduction.  ;) 

[Liberty]

When things are going well, people think they'll go well forever, and when they are going badly, people think they'll go badly forever.

[racemize]

I wonder what debt we would have without the wars, or at least the Iraq invasion.  That's probably easy to figure out.  Wikipedia, here I come.

[ECCO]

When things are going well, people think they'll go well forever, and when they are going badly, people think they'll go badly forever.

 

Liberty, that's exactly what many financial analyst are doing...when a stock goes up they expect it to keep going up and increase their target, and when the stock goes down it should keep going down.

[moore_capital54]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

[PlanMaestro]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

Debt Growth = 0 and GDP Growth > 0 => Debt/GDP trends to 0

 

with a balanced budget just normal inflation reduces Debt/GDP over time … put some real growth and it trends to 0 reasonably fast.

 

[racemize]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

I don't think that's very fair--he did screw it up on the debate, but there is no way he actually thinks that.  I think he just had an issue in the heat of the moment.

[StubbleJumper]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

 

Nope.  I have a strong grasp of public sector economics.  I just failed to understand what conclusion I should draw from a photo of a president in front of a balanced budget chart when that president has been retired for 12 years.

 

-does it mean we should vote for Clintons at all possible opportunities?

-does it mean that Clinton's effort to balance the budget was misguided?

-does it mean that the two guys who came after Clinton are/were losers?

-does it mean that Clinton viewed the world through rose-coloured glasses?

-does it mean that the world has changed since Clinton?

 

What conclusion did you draw from that photo?  I still don't get it.

[StubbleJumper]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

Debt Growth = 0 and GDP Growth > 0 => Debt/GDP trends to 0

 

with a balanced budget just normal inflation reduces Debt/GDP over time … put some real growth and it trends to 0 reasonably fast.

 

 

You got all of that from the original post?

[rkbabang]

-does it mean that the two guys who came after Clinton are/were losers?

 

I think this goes almost without saying.

[moore_capital54]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

I don't think that's very fair--he did screw it up on the debate, but there is no way he actually thinks that.  I think he just had an issue in the heat of the moment.

 

Are you kidding me? Jon Stewart proved to the world just how stupid some of these talking heads are. He could not grasp the difference and was so pro Obama he refused to even listen as O'reilly tried to explain the difference. We live in very very dangerous times.

[Parsad]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

I don't think that's very fair--he did screw it up on the debate, but there is no way he actually thinks that.  I think he just had an issue in the heat of the moment.

 

Are you kidding me? Jon Stewart proved to the world just how stupid some of these talking heads are. He could not grasp the difference and was so pro Obama he refused to even listen as O'reilly tried to explain the difference. We live in very very dangerous times.

 

The times are no more dangerous than past crises.  Every decade we go through a period of peril and despair, and then the immediate gasp of relief as things bottom and economies eventually turnaround.  Every 30 years, the depth of the event looks unmanageable.  Every 50 years, it looks like the worst thing that ever happened. 

 

I think most people who were around during the time of Pearl Harbor thought it was the worst thing that could have ever happened.  Well guess what...70 years later 9/11 came along, and everyone then thought it was the worst thing.  Right now, the world is at the depths of a long economic crisis, and eventually we will all come up for air.  This too shall pass!  Cheers!

[value-is-what-you-get]

What I get from that picture is another politician telling us what will happen in 20 years if you vote for them today.  Well that curve ends 12 - 16 years after they are gone anyway - so it's a big crock of sh*t.  If he says I don't know what will happen 20 years from now, but I do know this is the direction we need to go in and here's how I'll spend the next 4 years turning the ship, then it's at least in the realm of reality.

[moore_capital54]

I don't get it.  What am I missing here?  We all know that Clinton balanced the budget a hundred years ago, but that's all ancient history now.

 

What point are you attempting to make?

 

Please don't tell me you are as stupid as Jon Stewart and think that balancing the budget equates to extinguishing the debt lol

 

I don't think that's very fair--he did screw it up on the debate, but there is no way he actually thinks that.  I think he just had an issue in the heat of the moment.

 

Are you kidding me? Jon Stewart proved to the world just how stupid some of these talking heads are. He could not grasp the difference and was so pro Obama he refused to even listen as O'reilly tried to explain the difference. We live in very very dangerous times.

 

The times are no more dangerous than past crises.  Every decade we go through a period of peril and despair, and then the immediate gasp of relief as things bottom and economies eventually turnaround.  Every 30 years, the depth of the event looks unmanageable.  Every 50 years, it looks like the worst thing that ever happened. 

 

I think most people who were around during the time of Pearl Harbor thought it was the worst thing that could have ever happened.  Well guess what...70 years later 9/11 came along, and everyone then thought it was the worst thing.  Right now, the world is at the depths of a long economic crisis, and eventually we will all come up for air.  This too shall pass!  Cheers!

 

Parsad I don't think you understood me. What I meant by my comment was that we live in very very dangerous times when a large part of the electorate, specifically the younger generation think that people like Jon Stewart are so brilliant and then they demonstrate that they are just actors.  If Stewart doesn't get the severity of our debts I can assure you his viewers have no clue.

[PlanMaestro]

Parsad I don't think you understood me. What I meant by my comment was that we live in very very dangerous times when a large part of the electorate, specifically the younger generation think that people like Jon Stewart are so brilliant and then they demonstrate that they are just actors.  If Stewart doesn't get the severity of our debts I can assure you his viewers have no clue.

 

What happened to the old moderate Moore? Must be election time I suppose. #taxes #hyperinflation #worldisgoingtoend #dontmesswithmystuff

 

[Parsad]

Parsad I don't think you understood me. What I meant by my comment was that we live in very very dangerous times when a large part of the electorate, specifically the younger generation think that people like Jon Stewart are so brilliant and then they demonstrate that they are just actors.  If Stewart doesn't get the severity of our debts I can assure you his viewers have no clue.

 

Same answer as before.  Basically this is the same old inter-generational debate that we have every so often..."you young whipper snapper"..."you old guys are out of touch"...etc, etc. 

 

You do realize that the same arguments were made against the misunderstood, naive, belligerent, sophmoric youth of the 70's, and they ended up being some of the greatest capitalists in history.  I don't see how this proportion of the electorate will be any different.  Am I the only old guy here who isn't turning a shade of "old geezer"?  Geez...I feel like Neil Young..."Old man, look at my life, I'm alot like you were!"  ;D  Cheers! 

[moore_capital54]

Parsad I don't think you understood me. What I meant by my comment was that we live in very very dangerous times when a large part of the electorate, specifically the younger generation think that people like Jon Stewart are so brilliant and then they demonstrate that they are just actors.  If Stewart doesn't get the severity of our debts I can assure you his viewers have no clue.

 

What happened to the old moderate Moore? Must be election time I suppose. #taxes #hyperinflation #worldisgoingtoend #dontmesswithmystuff

 

 

I am as moderate as they come but when there is no opportunity to change the status quo I focus on making money and keep my head down. When we are 26 days from an election I focus on the issue at hand with great passion. I weigh the last four years and as myself whether I like the direction we are heading. I don't.

 

This is not the same as all those "other times" parsad as you have an uneducated electorate that relies on the state and doesn't grasp the simple concept of debt vs deficits. I for one thought Stewart was a smart lad until that gaffe. Does anybody understand that since Obama has been office we have been adding $4B a day to our cumulative debt load?

[jeffmori7]

Does anybody understand that since Obama has been office we have been adding $4B a day to our cumulative debt load?

 

And how much was it during the Bush era?

 

Oh..and there was no financial mess to account for before Obama's presidency?

 

Anyway, it seems that Republicans will always be Republicans, Democrats will always be Democrats, and a tiny part of the electors will vote on one side or the other depending of the candidate...And in every political discussions, the same arguments are used by both sides to make different points..so why debate :)

 

And worse Moore, much of the people, on either side, will vote based on completely superficial arguments without wanting to know what each candidate propose, and that is what is the most depressing for me!

[Cardboard]

"This too shall pass!"

 

That is unless we keep digging deeper.

 

Although I am trying to be an optimist, I tend to be more a realist and like Moore I am quite concerned about 4 more years with Obama and the long term consequences. The debt situation and the overall mismanagement of government (and it is not just Obama, but Congress and previous administrations), could reach a point of no return or a tipping point as described by Simpson, Bowles and Blankfein on CNBC around lunch time today. We can't keep making promises that are unmanageable to simply garner more votes, stimulating forever and risking the future. I think that Romney and his team have a deeper sense of urgency to address these issues. If the guy is there just for the honors, we will find out pretty quickly, but he appears sincere IMO to help things out.

 

Also, we see companies everyday that are falling by the way side due to technological changes, finance mismanagement, fraud, etc. Why would it be any different for governments and civilizations? If one looks at history, it is filled with failed empires. It took a lot of time in each instance to happen, but eventually it happened for all of them. So I tend to cringe when I hear Buffett who keeps saying that America's best days are ahead. While I have no doubt that they are going to be better, how much better is the part that he fails to identify. And if we keep adding debt faster than GDP growth over time, then at some point there is a tipping point and it likely won't be better days.

 

On growth, I am quite concerned about this never ending quest for growth, although Romney will not do anything about that. IMO, growth goes hand in hand with population growth and the need to meet basic needs. As described by Grantham recently, exponential growth always stops at some point. Can demographics and this insatiable need for energy, food and other resources become so scarce or expensive to affect this growth rate seen in recent decades? While I support the idea of technology helping us to meet some of these challenges, the numbers become mind boggling over time. At just 2% growth rate in the world's population over the next 100 years, we would be around 50 billion. In 200 years, it would be 370 billion! Maybe that some will live on a different planet by then. I guess that we would have no choice with these kind of numbers.

 

Cardboard

[jeffmori7]

 

On growth, I am quite concerned about this never ending quest for growth, although Romney will not do anything about that. IMO, growth goes hand in hand with population growth and the need to meet basic needs. As described by Grantham recently, exponential growth always stops at some point. Can demographics and this insatiable need for energy, food and other resources become so scarce or expensive to affect this growth rate seen in recent decades? While I support the idea of technology helping us to meet some of these challenges, the numbers become mind boggling over time. At just 2% growth rate in the world's population over the next 100 years, we would be around 50 billion. In 200 years, it would be 370 billion! Maybe that some will live on a different planet by then. I guess that we would have no choice with these kind of numbers.

 

Cardboard

 

Cardboard, great post! About growth, what you suggest here remind me of a post by Liberty recently. I have this feeling that it will become normal for mature society to present slow to no growth in the future. Otherwise, it's just unsustainable. I would much rather prefer a planet with less population with higher living standards than the contrary! 

[Liberty]

Population growth is already slowing down rapidly in many countries. I think Iran is a good example; from memory, not so long ago they had over 8 children per woman on average and now they are barely at replacement rate, if not below. This seems to happen in all countries that get a minimum of wealth and education. Based on what I've read, I think world population should stabilize at around 9-10 billion, and over the longer term, progress in regenerative medecine should mean that people will live a lot longer (and I mean in a healthy state, not old frail people -- we'll eventually cure the diseases of aging) and have lower birth-rates (and have children later in life).

 

Just my futurism 2 cents.

 

As for economic growth, that's a totally different thing. That kind of growth is partly just monetary inflation, and it can partly become more from dematerialized goods (digital) and services, as well as a transition to cleaner sources of energy and much more efficient manufacturing, so that we don't put too much strain on the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.