It's a misleading way of calculating the number, since it refers to all of the future debt obligations, including Social Security out many decades -- but also ignoring the fact that we'll be collecting taxes all that time.
It's a bit like concluding that you're a million dollars in debt because you are going to need to buy food for the rest of your life. I suppose it's true -- it is something you need to plan for. But it's misleading to suggest that it means you're automatically destined for bankruptcy.
The fact is that Social Security is in trouble: the pay-as-you-go plan doesn't work with an increasing lifespan. The establishment of the Trust Fund didn't really solve it -- it really just increased the size of the federal government without having to explicitly borrow money (and then still somehow managed to also have to explicitly borrow money).
But that doesn't make "$146T" a meaningful number. The meaningful number is 2033, the year Social Security is projected to run out of money. Also, conveniently, the year I qualify for Social Security -- this is something Gen X'ers have always expected, though it got worse during the pandemic.
That doesn't automatically mean we won't get anything, but it does mean that the government is going to have an even harder time meeting its obligations.
> The meaningful number is 2033, the year Social Security is projected to run out of money.
This is the year the trust fund runs out of money, at which point Social Security won't be able to meet its full obligations, only what it can cover with current payroll taxes. Social Security can't run out of money unless the taxes that support it are eliminated. "Social Security won't be available for you Gen X'ers" is misleading propaganda spread by people who want Social Security to go away. When the trust fund is tapped out, unless we remove the income cap, Social Security will be less generous. It won't go away. If we remove or lift the income cap, this problem goes away altogether.
>ignoring the fact that we'll be collecting taxes all that time.
This is all wrong and it does not ignore this. The calculation only includes the portion of future obligations that can not be funded based on future revenue estimates. It does not simply take future expenses without taking into account future revenue as that would be patently absurd.
Furthermore it only includes future obligations that have currently been committed to, so for example it does not make projections about people who will at some point in the future be enrolled into Social Security (for example people not yet born).
> The meaningful number is 2033, the year Social Security is projected to run out of money.
This comment is excellent, except for one clarification: "Social Security" is not going to run out of money. The "Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund" will run out of money in 2033 (the disability insurance fund is solvent until 2057). After this happens -- and assuming no action by Congress -- Social Security will still be able to pay 76% of benefits to retirees based solely on payroll taxes collected. This isn't a great outcome, but it's far from insolvency.
The real misleading part, to the point of being actively malicious, is "Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k".
This is intended to make the median viewer, who will never see that much money at once in their entire life (and will take 20+ years to even make that much before-tax), feel that the Federal government is being irresponsible. It's an obvious push for fiscal conservatism which, crucially may or may not be warranted by the actual facts.
To state the obvious, most people out there do not make enough money to plausibly pay one million dollars in taxes. Therefore they will not be paying one million dollars in taxes (you can't squeeze blood from a stone). The inevitable result is that either the U.S. government is doomed to go bankrupt (what they want you to think), or rich people will be contributing more than that to the United States' debt obligation (hint: they already are).
If I’ve learned anything during the pandemic, it’s “that’s not how money works”. If it runs out, they’ll just borrow more. The real question is at what point are we so leveraged that we default on bonds because we can’t meet our obligations? 10 years? 100 years? I don’t think anyone can answer this. But this is how it will likely end.
> The fact is that Social Security is in trouble: the pay-as-you-go plan doesn't work with an increasing lifespan.
The situation is not ideal, but it isn't cataclysmic:
> The authors of the most recent report even took their calculations out to the year 2095. At that point, they estimate payroll taxes should still be able to cover 74% of payouts to Social Security recipients.
If you were valuing a company you would add the value of the pension fund but subtract the present value of the pension liabilities. When considering the level of indebtedness of the Federal government, I think liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare should be included.
I thought it could be misleading as well but it is not just calculating the “food you’ll need,” it is also calculating receipts over the same time that pay for food. It’s like saying you promised to buy a TV for $900 in December and by December you will only have $300. That means you will have to borrow $600 before then to meet that promise. Does that mean you owe $600 now, no, it does mean you either can’t buy the tv or will have to borrow that much more. It is essentially debt.
Would also note that if you're incorporating unfunded future liabilities, it also makes sense to cancel out intergovernmental debt, e.g. Treasuries held by the Federal Reserve or by agencies.
This is more a discussion of semantics than about the amount itself.
The way I read the statistics is that the current debt is $28T of money that is already spent while the quoted debt of $146T is the amount of money needed to be spent to fill full current promises and expenses.
It's interesting that since the USA got off the gold standard in 1971[1], and thereby all countries that had a currency backed by dollars, the average household income has risen 5x but the price of goods like a house have gone up 10x.
This became possible because all for a sudden money was not backed by gold anymore, but could simply be printed when needed. This created huge money supply inflation [2].
Everything is getting too expensive, and the only reason we don't feel this too much just yet, is because often times cheaper alternatives where available.
My parents are in their 70's and they still have furniture that was (second hand) given to them when they got married. Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years? My point about "cheaper alternatives" exactly...
> My parents are in their 70's and they still have furniture that was (second hand) given to them when they got married. Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years? My point about "cheaper alternatives" exactly...
Part of this is cultural.
People now consume more than they used to. For many generations people patched their clothes. Now they throw them out. It's a culture of consume, toss it, consume some more.
That culture influences personal decisions and those we influence for our companies.
You can still get high quality furniture. If you're going to replace it soon due to style changes do you care about quality?
> thereby all countries that had a currency backed by dollars, the average household income has risen 5x but the price of goods like a house have gone up 10x
Real personal income has consistently gone upwards.
The gold standard ended in 1933. Bretton Woods wasn't really a return to the gold standard. It was really just a way for the US to profit off of the recovery from WW2. They wasn't particularly careful with printing money back then either. Europe and Japan were desperate for international liquidity to rebuild their economies, so they were initially happy to exchange gold for dollars at unfavorable rates. After they no longer needed the dollar, they stopped purchasing them, so the US had no choice but to end Bretton Woods.
> but could simply be printed when needed. This created huge money supply inflation
This could and did happen before 1971. The US government has always been able to issue debt. And paper money, in the form of bonds, has been a staple of the country's financial systems since long before it was a country. Mostly owing to the fact that England largely prohibited the export of specie to the colonies. Forcing states to figure out their own monetary systems.
> Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years?
Yes. I have plenty of of IKEA furniture that's seen daily use for ~20 years and still looks brand new. People don't seem to realize this, but IKEA does sell solid wood furniture. I have an entire bedroom set (and matching shelves) that are made of solid wood with a thin resin coating that prevents scratches and dings. The bedframe does need the screws tightened on occasion, but with the dresser, I put it together with wood glue and never bother to empty it when moving (glued dowels are essentially as strong as a mortise and tenon joint) . It's survived like five moves without issue. My old desk found a spot as a work bench in my shop as the tabletop is incredibly durable. I'd love to find another one.
My parent's house still has the IKEA flooring that we installed in like 2002. Even their cheapo furniture isn't bad. I'm still rocking these $5 end tables that I bought in like 2008. I put some dowels in the feet and stacked them to make a shelve that converts into a low table for my shop.
Not only will IKEA furniture still be around in 40 years, due to survivorship bias, they will be known for making incredibly durable furniture by future generations.
> the only reason we don't feel this too much just yet, is because often times cheaper alternatives where available.
There is a trick, what I like to call value extraction, that companies do in place of financial extraction(or raising prices).
This is commonly known as shrinkflation in regards to commodities, such as cereal, as the company provides less product for the same price and as such the product has to be bought more. People just buy their product as usual and don't realize the quantity has gone down and just have to purchase more and more.
In the sense of a more tangible product, like a tool or shoe, the company lowers the 'value'...it is cheaper pricewise by say a factor of 3 but the actual quality of the product is lowered by a factor of 10 or more, in materials, in manufacturing, etc..so the value is reduced massively, and it's cheaper financially in the short run on the price tag, but not cheaper in the long run, because the product fails much more often than the quality product and has to be purchased over and over again.
As humans we just see the price tag in the short term for all of it. Prices are easy to compare and are objective, value is much harder to quantify.
This is also part of Ubers business model of milking drivers as well, not out of money, but out of asset depreciation. The drivers just see the money they're making today, and aren't thinking about long term asset depreciation.
So the less educated driver thinks they're making 20 bucks an hour, but in reality that driver is making like 4 bucks an hour after operating expenses, however, Uber advertises the 20 dollar an hour number in employment ads.
I haven't formed a complete framework for it but this idea of 'value extraction' is one way companies make money without raising prices.
This is disingenuous, alarmist, click-bait, bulls**t.
The $28T figure consists of:
* ~$6T held by the Federal Reserve: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFRBN -- this is money that the government owes, quite literally, to itself, made possible by the independence of the Federal Reserve, which has been buying government obligations to keep interest rates low.
Thus the US federal government owes $15T to taxpayers. If you have a bond index in your 401(k), then YOU are one of those taxpayers to whom the US government owes those $15T. The federal government owes money TO you. Your share is how much you will receive.
The social-safety-net figures in excess of the $28T are future obligations... also owed to, guess who? US taxpayers. If you expect to benefit from Medicare and/or Social Security in your old age, then YOU are one of those taxpayers to whom the US government owes those future obligations. The federal government owes those obligations TO you. Your share is how much you will receive.
Numerous good responses already, but basically the first thing you should do when you see anyone talk about The Debt is say "Okay, now do assets and revenues."
The second thing you should do is note that talk of "unfunded liabilities" is a 10 year old debunked talking point that invites you to imagine future spending over an infinite horizon without setting it side by side with future revenue. Nobody will ever give you a clear, simple explanation of why you should think that way.
The third thing is take to heart some good points being raised here - debt is an investment in U.S. growth and not just a bad loan you are carrying around, the whole thing gets reframed if you consider what the U.S. is "worth", and probably many more after this post has been up for an hour or two.
I think articles like this really highlight the value of a place like hackernews. The instinct to tear apart assumptions and unstated premises is at its best in response to articles like these, so I tend to upvote these items even though I disagree with their framing.
The US National Debt being viewed like a bad loan is a load of BS - that's a sum invested and leveraged against the projected continued growth of the country and, honestly, nobody on earth has the ability to forcefully collect from the US government.
As far as I understand it, it has nothing to do with creditor’s ability to collect but the interest future creditors will be willing to part with their money for.
With an institution even a fraction the size of the US federal government, I don’t think people can reasonably collect, and instead the incentive to take care of current creditors is to give future creditors confidence that their investment is safe. Historically this allows the US to borrow at very low rates.
Nobody cares anymore. People are working, resources are being extracted, created and traded, economies are rolling. Money is there to facilitate that, but on its own it's pretty much worthless. Just wish inequality wasn't so fucking huge.
Funny how all the money given to Raytheon etc. to fund 20 years of Afghan war and nation building, and military bases all over the world never adds any debt!
The only government spending lobbyists and think tanks ever see is the spending that I might at some point see some benefit from.
I honestly don't get why anybody ever mentions the "taxpayer's share" as though it means anything. Yes we have a lot of debt, but the debt has actual terms for paying it, it's not like someone can go "BTW we expect that $28T in the mail tomorrow" and we'd have to pay up.
IE. I own a house, which costs more than I make in a year. But the bank is not allowed to just email me tomorrow and ask for all the money, I have 30 years to pay it off with a set schedule I'm capable of meeting, so the actual amount of debt is pretty irrelevant.
For those interested, I wrote a website that lets you easily contact your local, state, and federal representation. Still building it out, if anyone has anything they'd like added please let me know:
If I were to accept the numbers as real and accurate. Am I correct to assume $951k over my "working" lifetime? Assuming if I start working at 18 and stop at 67, is that 951K "owed" over that time period? ~20K/yr in taxes owed to repay the debt.
That's the amount that went into the private sector. It's literally how much money went into the private sector, every penny of it. To put it another way, if the government didn't spend, then the private sector would get less income. Or, every American would be fiscally poorer. One's spending is another person's income.
Another figure I like to focus on it's public spending as percentage of GDP.
In 2020, the U.S. government has spent 46.18% of the total GPD. Which means almost half of every economic activities in the U.S. were directly spent by the government.
I think it's a more interesting number than debt or taxation as you can immediately see how much the government controls the economy whereas debt and taxation are just technically playing the money supply at the end of day.
> The superficial similarity to a Ponzi scheme is that different sets of investors are relying on future investors, or at least future growth, to get paid back. But that defines a Ponzi scheme so broadly as to make the term meaningless. In that definition, any intergenerational transfer system is a Ponzi scheme.
> What makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is that it’s a giant fraud. People think they’re investing in postal stamps. Their money is actually being invested in nothing. In Social Security, conversely, it’s perfectly clear what is going on. Every year, Social Security’s actuaries release an insanely detailed report on the system’s finances, its balance of payments, the potential problems it could face, and so on. You can read their report here. In a Ponzi scheme, the finances are a secret, and that’s central to the enterprise. In Social Security, they are, as a matter of law, public.
It's not a pyramid scheme because there's no promise of returns. One may pay $1,000,000 in social security and receive $0, but other may pay in only $10,000 and receive $100,000 over their lifetime. People who pay into it will get $X, unless the surplus runs out, in which case they get a reduced amount proportional to the amount of money coming in.
A pyramid scheme guarantees returns, and those guarantees can, and will eventually, exceed the amount of money held by the scheme. Social security makes no such guarantee.
Social Security is basically a modified tontine. You pay in during your working life, and then receive payments at some age until you die. Like a tontine, the longer you live, the more payout you receive.
[+] [-] jfengel|4 years ago|reply
It's a bit like concluding that you're a million dollars in debt because you are going to need to buy food for the rest of your life. I suppose it's true -- it is something you need to plan for. But it's misleading to suggest that it means you're automatically destined for bankruptcy.
The fact is that Social Security is in trouble: the pay-as-you-go plan doesn't work with an increasing lifespan. The establishment of the Trust Fund didn't really solve it -- it really just increased the size of the federal government without having to explicitly borrow money (and then still somehow managed to also have to explicitly borrow money).
But that doesn't make "$146T" a meaningful number. The meaningful number is 2033, the year Social Security is projected to run out of money. Also, conveniently, the year I qualify for Social Security -- this is something Gen X'ers have always expected, though it got worse during the pandemic.
That doesn't automatically mean we won't get anything, but it does mean that the government is going to have an even harder time meeting its obligations.
[+] [-] DFHippie|4 years ago|reply
This is the year the trust fund runs out of money, at which point Social Security won't be able to meet its full obligations, only what it can cover with current payroll taxes. Social Security can't run out of money unless the taxes that support it are eliminated. "Social Security won't be available for you Gen X'ers" is misleading propaganda spread by people who want Social Security to go away. When the trust fund is tapped out, unless we remove the income cap, Social Security will be less generous. It won't go away. If we remove or lift the income cap, this problem goes away altogether.
[+] [-] Kranar|4 years ago|reply
This is all wrong and it does not ignore this. The calculation only includes the portion of future obligations that can not be funded based on future revenue estimates. It does not simply take future expenses without taking into account future revenue as that would be patently absurd.
Furthermore it only includes future obligations that have currently been committed to, so for example it does not make projections about people who will at some point in the future be enrolled into Social Security (for example people not yet born).
[+] [-] matthewdgreen|4 years ago|reply
This comment is excellent, except for one clarification: "Social Security" is not going to run out of money. The "Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund" will run out of money in 2033 (the disability insurance fund is solvent until 2057). After this happens -- and assuming no action by Congress -- Social Security will still be able to pay 76% of benefits to retirees based solely on payroll taxes collected. This isn't a great outcome, but it's far from insolvency.
[+] [-] bscphil|4 years ago|reply
This is intended to make the median viewer, who will never see that much money at once in their entire life (and will take 20+ years to even make that much before-tax), feel that the Federal government is being irresponsible. It's an obvious push for fiscal conservatism which, crucially may or may not be warranted by the actual facts.
To state the obvious, most people out there do not make enough money to plausibly pay one million dollars in taxes. Therefore they will not be paying one million dollars in taxes (you can't squeeze blood from a stone). The inevitable result is that either the U.S. government is doomed to go bankrupt (what they want you to think), or rich people will be contributing more than that to the United States' debt obligation (hint: they already are).
[+] [-] listless|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
The situation is not ideal, but it isn't cataclysmic:
> The authors of the most recent report even took their calculations out to the year 2095. At that point, they estimate payroll taxes should still be able to cover 74% of payouts to Social Security recipients.
* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/09/can-young-people-st...
The report in question:
* https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2021/tr2021.pdf
Two possible solutions (non-exhaustive): increase pay cheque contributions, use general revenues to make up the shortfall.
[+] [-] Bostonian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smaryjerry|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|4 years ago|reply
If you have to pay annuity to a relative until they die, I don't think it reflects a good picture of your net worth to ignore that number either.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megablast|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EastOfTruth|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janandonly|4 years ago|reply
The way I read the statistics is that the current debt is $28T of money that is already spent while the quoted debt of $146T is the amount of money needed to be spent to fill full current promises and expenses.
It's interesting that since the USA got off the gold standard in 1971[1], and thereby all countries that had a currency backed by dollars, the average household income has risen 5x but the price of goods like a house have gone up 10x. This became possible because all for a sudden money was not backed by gold anymore, but could simply be printed when needed. This created huge money supply inflation [2].
Everything is getting too expensive, and the only reason we don't feel this too much just yet, is because often times cheaper alternatives where available.
My parents are in their 70's and they still have furniture that was (second hand) given to them when they got married. Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years? My point about "cheaper alternatives" exactly...
[1] https://mises.org/wire/today-1971-president-nixon-closes-gol...
[2] https://twitter.com/WTF_1971
[+] [-] mfer|4 years ago|reply
Part of this is cultural.
People now consume more than they used to. For many generations people patched their clothes. Now they throw them out. It's a culture of consume, toss it, consume some more.
That culture influences personal decisions and those we influence for our companies.
You can still get high quality furniture. If you're going to replace it soon due to style changes do you care about quality?
[+] [-] whimsicalism|4 years ago|reply
Real personal income has consistently gone upwards.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI
[+] [-] Aunche|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mywittyname|4 years ago|reply
This could and did happen before 1971. The US government has always been able to issue debt. And paper money, in the form of bonds, has been a staple of the country's financial systems since long before it was a country. Mostly owing to the fact that England largely prohibited the export of specie to the colonies. Forcing states to figure out their own monetary systems.
> Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years?
Yes. I have plenty of of IKEA furniture that's seen daily use for ~20 years and still looks brand new. People don't seem to realize this, but IKEA does sell solid wood furniture. I have an entire bedroom set (and matching shelves) that are made of solid wood with a thin resin coating that prevents scratches and dings. The bedframe does need the screws tightened on occasion, but with the dresser, I put it together with wood glue and never bother to empty it when moving (glued dowels are essentially as strong as a mortise and tenon joint) . It's survived like five moves without issue. My old desk found a spot as a work bench in my shop as the tabletop is incredibly durable. I'd love to find another one.
My parent's house still has the IKEA flooring that we installed in like 2002. Even their cheapo furniture isn't bad. I'm still rocking these $5 end tables that I bought in like 2008. I put some dowels in the feet and stacked them to make a shelve that converts into a low table for my shop.
Not only will IKEA furniture still be around in 40 years, due to survivorship bias, they will be known for making incredibly durable furniture by future generations.
[+] [-] throwdecro|4 years ago|reply
Yeah. IKEA's not bad.
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|4 years ago|reply
There is a trick, what I like to call value extraction, that companies do in place of financial extraction(or raising prices).
This is commonly known as shrinkflation in regards to commodities, such as cereal, as the company provides less product for the same price and as such the product has to be bought more. People just buy their product as usual and don't realize the quantity has gone down and just have to purchase more and more.
In the sense of a more tangible product, like a tool or shoe, the company lowers the 'value'...it is cheaper pricewise by say a factor of 3 but the actual quality of the product is lowered by a factor of 10 or more, in materials, in manufacturing, etc..so the value is reduced massively, and it's cheaper financially in the short run on the price tag, but not cheaper in the long run, because the product fails much more often than the quality product and has to be purchased over and over again.
As humans we just see the price tag in the short term for all of it. Prices are easy to compare and are objective, value is much harder to quantify.
This is also part of Ubers business model of milking drivers as well, not out of money, but out of asset depreciation. The drivers just see the money they're making today, and aren't thinking about long term asset depreciation. So the less educated driver thinks they're making 20 bucks an hour, but in reality that driver is making like 4 bucks an hour after operating expenses, however, Uber advertises the 20 dollar an hour number in employment ads.
I haven't formed a complete framework for it but this idea of 'value extraction' is one way companies make money without raising prices.
[+] [-] cs702|4 years ago|reply
The $28T figure consists of:
* ~$6T held by the Federal Reserve: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFRBN -- this is money that the government owes, quite literally, to itself, made possible by the independence of the Federal Reserve, which has been buying government obligations to keep interest rates low.
* ~$7T held by foreigners: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFIN -- this is money that will have to be paid to foreigners, over the long run.
* ~$15T held by US taxpayers, calculated as total held by the public (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFDPUN) less total held by foreigners (above).
Thus the US federal government owes $15T to taxpayers. If you have a bond index in your 401(k), then YOU are one of those taxpayers to whom the US government owes those $15T. The federal government owes money TO you. Your share is how much you will receive.
The social-safety-net figures in excess of the $28T are future obligations... also owed to, guess who? US taxpayers. If you expect to benefit from Medicare and/or Social Security in your old age, then YOU are one of those taxpayers to whom the US government owes those future obligations. The federal government owes those obligations TO you. Your share is how much you will receive.
[+] [-] glenstein|4 years ago|reply
The second thing you should do is note that talk of "unfunded liabilities" is a 10 year old debunked talking point that invites you to imagine future spending over an infinite horizon without setting it side by side with future revenue. Nobody will ever give you a clear, simple explanation of why you should think that way.
The third thing is take to heart some good points being raised here - debt is an investment in U.S. growth and not just a bad loan you are carrying around, the whole thing gets reframed if you consider what the U.S. is "worth", and probably many more after this post has been up for an hour or two.
I think articles like this really highlight the value of a place like hackernews. The instinct to tear apart assumptions and unstated premises is at its best in response to articles like these, so I tend to upvote these items even though I disagree with their framing.
[+] [-] munk-a|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattnewton|4 years ago|reply
With an institution even a fraction the size of the US federal government, I don’t think people can reasonably collect, and instead the incentive to take care of current creditors is to give future creditors confidence that their investment is safe. Historically this allows the US to borrow at very low rates.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|4 years ago|reply
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/chicago-in-deb...
"Chicago in debt despite balanced budget and federal aid"
Well, yeah. I have a balanced household budget and a big mortgage (debt). It works fine.
[+] [-] outside1234|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boringg|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bserge|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VictorPath|4 years ago|reply
Funny how all the money given to Raytheon etc. to fund 20 years of Afghan war and nation building, and military bases all over the world never adds any debt!
The only government spending lobbyists and think tanks ever see is the spending that I might at some point see some benefit from.
[+] [-] DSMan195276|4 years ago|reply
IE. I own a house, which costs more than I make in a year. But the bank is not allowed to just email me tomorrow and ask for all the money, I have 30 years to pay it off with a set schedule I'm capable of meeting, so the actual amount of debt is pretty irrelevant.
[+] [-] lettergram|4 years ago|reply
https://vocalvoters.com?category=increased%20government%20sp...
Note, the current options are all based on who was willing to work with me. If you have any suggests happy to add.
[+] [-] m_ke|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TbobbyZ|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seneca|4 years ago|reply
Tonight.
[+] [-] sharemywin|4 years ago|reply
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-entire-united-states-ame....
It's interesting about how much is owned by foreign corporations and other entities.
basically we slowing turned our entire workforce into indentured servants to foreign "investors"
[+] [-] mempko|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM
It's amazing how little the general public and especially our elected officials understand this.
[+] [-] kingforaday|4 years ago|reply
Is this correct thinking? Asking for a friend. :)
[+] [-] mempko|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivalm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|4 years ago|reply
In 2020, the U.S. government has spent 46.18% of the total GPD. Which means almost half of every economic activities in the U.S. were directly spent by the government.
I think it's a more interesting number than debt or taxation as you can immediately see how much the government controls the economy whereas debt and taxation are just technically playing the money supply at the end of day.
[+] [-] jazzyjackson|4 years ago|reply
The more debt the US government goes into, the more money there is to go around.
[+] [-] crobertsbmw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|4 years ago|reply
> The superficial similarity to a Ponzi scheme is that different sets of investors are relying on future investors, or at least future growth, to get paid back. But that defines a Ponzi scheme so broadly as to make the term meaningless. In that definition, any intergenerational transfer system is a Ponzi scheme.
> What makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme is that it’s a giant fraud. People think they’re investing in postal stamps. Their money is actually being invested in nothing. In Social Security, conversely, it’s perfectly clear what is going on. Every year, Social Security’s actuaries release an insanely detailed report on the system’s finances, its balance of payments, the potential problems it could face, and so on. You can read their report here. In a Ponzi scheme, the finances are a secret, and that’s central to the enterprise. In Social Security, they are, as a matter of law, public.
[+] [-] mywittyname|4 years ago|reply
A pyramid scheme guarantees returns, and those guarantees can, and will eventually, exceed the amount of money held by the scheme. Social security makes no such guarantee.
Social Security is basically a modified tontine. You pay in during your working life, and then receive payments at some age until you die. Like a tontine, the longer you live, the more payout you receive.
[+] [-] TbobbyZ|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] david-cako|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] literallyaduck|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goalieca|4 years ago|reply