winsor 236
turtlespeed 226
winsor***[Reply]If I understand you correctly then what your saying is that whether it's 3.6 or 1.8 is trivial and either way it's more debt which isn't a good thing.
Correct. When the deficit is mentioned in terms of percentage of GDP but they don't mention the total debt as a percentage of GDP, then obfuscation is the goal. We're already at more than 100% of GDP for debt.
So each new deficit is just added weight.
If I have a massively negative bank balance, habitually writing checks for, say, $5,000 more than I deposit every month, and tell my bank that I will henceforth write checks for only $1,500 more than I deposit every month, I doubt if they will be elated.
For some reason, many people that can figure out that scenario seem to think that the rules of arithmetic do not apply to the Gov't.
BSBD,
Winsor
I'm pretty sure that the bank would have you arrested before you could write too many of those.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
winsor 236
turtlespeed******[Reply]If I understand you correctly then what your saying is that whether it's 3.6 or 1.8 is trivial and either way it's more debt which isn't a good thing.
Correct. When the deficit is mentioned in terms of percentage of GDP but they don't mention the total debt as a percentage of GDP, then obfuscation is the goal. We're already at more than 100% of GDP for debt.
So each new deficit is just added weight.
If I have a massively negative bank balance, habitually writing checks for, say, $5,000 more than I deposit every month, and tell my bank that I will henceforth write checks for only $1,500 more than I deposit every month, I doubt if they will be elated.
For some reason, many people that can figure out that scenario seem to think that the rules of arithmetic do not apply to the Gov't.
BSBD,
Winsor
I'm pretty sure that the bank would have you arrested before you could write too many of those.
Well, the Gov't seems to count on the principle that if you owe the bank $1,000 it's your problem, but if you owe the bank $100,000,000 it's the bank's problem.
I agree that if I handled my finances the way the Federal Gov't did, I would face life in prison.
Bernie Madoff asked why people were taking him to task, since the Federal Gov't was a Ponzi scheme.
He would know.
BSBD,
Winsor
This makes it real clear.
So... We are spending way more then we should be every month
Aka more then is coming in.
What they keep gloating about is that we are not doing that as badly now as we have in the past.
The way you hear them say it the numbers have really been making progress but the reality is it's going to take another however many years only to see another 1 or 2% decline and we still won't have broken even.
All this doesn't mean shit really...right?
So... We are spending way more then we should be every month
Aka more then is coming in.
What they keep gloating about is that we are not doing that as badly now as we have in the past.
The way you hear them say it the numbers have really been making progress but the reality is it's going to take another however many years only to see another 1 or 2% decline and we still won't have broken even.
All this doesn't mean shit really...right?
Ok now I get it.
Man, so simple when you finally get it.
Just a different kind of common sense but they try to confuse you because they don't really want you to know the truth.
Man, so simple when you finally get it.
Just a different kind of common sense but they try to confuse you because they don't really want you to know the truth.
winsor 236
swisschris62This makes it real clear.
So... We are spending way more then we should be every month
Aka more then is coming in.
What they keep gloating about is that we are not doing that as badly now as we have in the past.
The way you hear them say it the numbers have really been making progress but the reality is it's going to take another however many years only to see another 1 or 2% decline and we still won't have broken even.
All this doesn't mean shit really...right?
I played with the numbers a while back, and it went something like this: if the US Gov't spent absolutely nothing more than it took in, and every taxpayer paid another $1,000 a month to pay off the existing debt, at the going mortgage rates it would take something like 42 years for us to be flat broke.
This is not going to happen.
Every society that has dug itself in this deep has eventually had the same outcome. For a number of reasons we are significantly further behind the power curve than any of the previous societies that have so thoroughly screwed the pooch.
The simplest way to put things into perspective is to consider a 'quarantine' of the country. This is to say we look at what would happen if no goods or services either entered or left the country.
This would be the case if the dollar reverted to its inherent value, which is zero (in 1923 it took 1,000,000,000,000 Reichmarks
Okay, where does this leave us? Let's look at our energy use for starts.
Our oil and gas production is up (yay!) and our consumption is down (yippee!), to the extent that we produce almost half as much as we use (what?!). If the dollar goes away, tankers headed towards our shores will make a u-turn.
Now, having half as much petroleum available does not mean that we will only be able to buy half as much gasoline as we did before, using an equivalent amount of our new currency (bitcoins?). The amount of fuel used by mandatory applications such as power plants, agriculture (we'll get to that) defense purposes, transport and what not is over half of the current supply. The upshot is that the SUV in the driveway just became a lawn ornament for the forseeable future.
If you work beyond bicycle distance from home, you had best hope you can telecommute.
Now let's look at the Happy Meal that our national debt will buy us. To grow the wheat for the bun, we use fertilizers and pesticides brought to you by cheap and abundant petroleum. We carefully tend our fields with various products of John Deere, International Harvester and so forth, all running on cheap and plentiful petroleum. These crops are brought to the market by a legion of Peterbilts and Mack trucks, also powered by cheap and plentiful petroleum.
I'm sure I've missed a few critical issues, but you get the drift.
When I lived in Switzerland it was stressed to me that their society and economy are structured to take into account the fact that every once in a while the borders are effectively sealed, and there is no supply of anything that is not produced locally. The structural differences between the Swiss model and the US of A are massive and too many to list.
Given that a great deal of our economy is nonproductive by design, there is no reason to suppose that we will simply change gears and get with the program.
The bottom line is that we are beyond fucked. The only question is when it will all come together.
BSBD,
Winsor
winsor 236
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
I read quite a bit of the article. Then I had to stop. Interesting enough that I'll go back to it.
Such a fragile system and some many ways it can totally go wrong"..........led by dummies. YIKES
I read quite a bit of the article. Then I had to stop. Interesting enough that I'll go back to it.
Such a fragile system and some many ways it can totally go wrong"..........led by dummies. YIKES
kallend 2,106
winsor
I agree that if I handled my finances the way the Federal Gov't did, I would face life in prison.
Bernie Madoff asked why people were taking him to task, since the Federal Gov't was a Ponzi scheme.
He would know.
BSBD,
Winsor
Have you noticed that the only Wall Street types to end up in jail were those, like Madoff, who ripped off the 1%.
The folks who ripped off the middle class ended up with big bonuses.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Correct. When the deficit is mentioned in terms of percentage of GDP but they don't mention the total debt as a percentage of GDP, then obfuscation is the goal. We're already at more than 100% of GDP for debt.
So each new deficit is just added weight.
If I have a massively negative bank balance, habitually writing checks for, say, $5,000 more than I deposit every month, and tell my bank that I will henceforth write checks for only $1,500 more than I deposit every month, I doubt if they will be elated.
For some reason, many people that can figure out that scenario seem to think that the rules of arithmetic do not apply to the Gov't.
BSBD,
Winsor