U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would going over the fiscal Cliff be good or bad.
Yes it would be good for the country. 36 72.00%
No it would not be good for the country 14 28.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-02-2013, 02:24 PM
 
Location: NJ
27,965 posts, read 33,078,349 times
Reputation: 19993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
I wasn't suggesting that at all, see the post right above this one.
your point wasnt legitimate because the debt is increasing very quickly. its not brain surgery to know that if you have growth and debt is constant, the debt to GDP ratio improves. saying that is making no point and isnt at all relevant.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2013, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,375,845 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
your point wasnt legitimate because the debt is increasing very quickly. its not brain surgery to know that if you have growth and debt is constant, the debt to GDP ratio improves. saying that is making no point and isnt at all relevant.
The fact that the debt is still increasing (while the rate at which it is increasing has been decreasing) has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.

You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
our politicians now seem to like to talk in 10 year numbers. so lets say we have the 2012 deficity of $1.1 trillion. thats $11 trillion deficit over 10 years, that gets added to the current debt that is above $16 trilion. so i believe the republicans are proposing $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, when we need to make up an $11 trillion deficit.
The $17 trillion number and keeping the debt constant is just a hypothetical example, not any kind of prediction or suggestion for us to follow, to illustrate why we don't have to cut a full $11 trillion in spending to get the debt shrinking. Whether or not the scenario is likely to occur is irrelevant.

In 2012 the national debt was $16,066 billion compared to a GDP of $15,776 billion according to the numbers I just found googling, or 101.8% of GDP. Let's say for 2013 the GDP increases 2.5% to $16,170 billion. To simply maintain the same debt/GDP ratio would require us to shrink the deficit for 2013 to ~$395 billion (16170 x 1.018= 16461 -16066 = 395). The current projected deficit for 2013 is $900 billion. $900 billion- $395 billion= $505 billion. If tax receipts increase by $100 billion through changes to the tax code and a stronger economy in 2013, make that $405 billion. So if the numbers work out this way, cutting more than ~$405 billion from the 2013 budget would be required to decrease the debt as measured as a percentage of GDP, not $1.1 trillion.

No, the debt/GDP ratio is not brain surgery, yet it's something that almost never gets brought up in these conversations. Nor do spending/GDP or deficit/GDP. People would rather just throw around scary nominal numbers that don't provide any perspective.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 08:55 AM
 
Location: NJ
27,965 posts, read 33,078,349 times
Reputation: 19993
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
The $17 trillion number and keeping the debt constant is just a hypothetical example, not any kind of prediction or suggestion for us to follow, to illustrate why we don't have to cut a full $11 trillion in spending to get the debt shrinking. Whether or not the scenario is likely to occur is irrelevant.
yeah, you hypothetically used a number that we will be well past by next year. but i think you believe the concept that if debt stays the same (haha) or doesnt grow as fast as economic growth that the debt ratio will get lower is much more brilliant than it actually is. its very simple but its also irrelevant because growth is extremely slow and the rate of increase of debt is very fast.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,375,845 times
Reputation: 2092
At this point I'm starting to think that you're just trolling and that you can't actually be this dense.

Nothing to support your incorrect belief that it's necessary to cut $1.1 trillion per year to improve the national debt situation? Just an Asperger's-like obsession with an example that your mind is apparently incapable of understanding the relevance of?

If someone says that if you bought $40 in shares of Coca Cola in 1960 and reinvested the dividends then you would have $10 million today to make the point that when you invest money it compounds and can greatly grow in size, would you respond with "that example is not relevant since $40 was a lot more money back then and a $40 share of Coca Cola today is a much smaller percentage of the company?" That is exactly what you're doing here. Missing the forest for the trees. Does your brain always have this much trouble with abstract concepts?

The ONLY point of the example was that the impact of the size of the debt is relative to the size of the economy (e.g. debt/GDP ratio). The debt/GDP ratio is highly relevant to a discussion of how much we need to cut to improve the debt/GDP ratio.

You're claiming that an example illustrating the importance of viewing things in terms of debt/GDP is not relevant because the debt is increasing faster than the economy? In other words, that it's not relevant to view things in terms of debt/GDP because the debt/GDP is increasing? That is one serious non sequitur.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,375,845 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSOs View Post
The Banksters/Big Business?/Stock Market can’t profit if the debt is held constant. IOW, the amount of growth needed to keep the debt held constant is not healthy/legitimately possible IMHO!


This chart would disagree with you. We did just fine and had a strong stock market and economy most of these years while the debt/GDP was constant or decreasing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:11 PM
 
2,665 posts, read 6,813,803 times
Reputation: 2651
The government hand outs,taking away our freedom,no justifacation for whatever they want to do and to much money and material junk for very little work.Do people know what work is?
With Washington like it is I do not see any change,they are interested only in there pockets,crooks.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2013, 01:49 PM
 
Location: 3rd Rock fts
748 posts, read 1,000,156 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post

This chart would disagree with you. We did just fine and had a strong stock market and economy most of these years while the debt/GDP was constant or decreasing.
Hey EugeneOnegin, you got another chart, this 1 stops @ 2007. On 2nd thought, don’t bother, the numbers don’t reflect the real reasons why things are happening anyway.

Since circa 2002, the strong stock market/economy came about because of phantom-equity extraction; debt-inducing exuberance; & a dash of ubiquitous moral hazard for staying power. Then post-2008, the USGov’t/Taxpayer had to clean up, & coddle/rescue the pathetically weak stock market/economy. Dubious charts.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 03:42 PM
 
Location: 3rd Rock fts
748 posts, read 1,000,156 times
Reputation: 304
Default The populace is STILL tapped out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
…So if the numbers work out this way, cutting more than ~$405 billion from the 2013 budget would be required to decrease the debt as measured as a percentage of GDP, not $1.1 trillion.
That’s $405 billion the ECONOMY needs just to keep floating along. The purchasing power of the populace is not there unless the Gov’t keeps borrowing. In addition, there’s pent-up demand for higher interest rates that’s just waiting for the Economy to start humming again.

Last edited by DSOs; 01-07-2013 at 05:08 PM.. Reason: deleted smack head
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top