How Big is the U.S. Debt? - Learn Liberty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2024
- “Economics: How Big is the U.S. Debt?” presented by Learn Liberty. How do you feel the government should be spending or saving money? Let us know in the comments below. Learn More: www.learnlibert...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
- Website: www.learnliber...
- Facebook: / learnliberty
- Twitter: / learnliberty
- Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN MORE:
“How Big is the U.S. Debt?” (video): The original video with Professor Ant Davies, launched 2/11/2011. • Prof. Antony Davies: H... .
National Debt (web page): Learn Liberty’s compendium of resources about the national debt. www.learnlibert....
“What is $1 trillion?” (pdf): A visualization of dollar amounts. www.antolin-dav....
“Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data” (white paper): taxfoundation.o....
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP
Another great video showing how insane our government spends....It's time to stop excessive spending...
+hag12100 how 'bout we just stop the government too. just end it. we don't need it.
+Joel Regen what's to stop another country from invading and taking over
+ethan wintill "ending" government right now would be unwise. Ancaps I know seem to all agree the way to their ideal society is one which will take decades if not centuries, and will require a slow process afterwards to get to that level of decentralization, and even then "government" will still exist, just not in the form of a forceful state, likely in the form of a market-driven insurance-esk system, with the most power being in the hands of popular writers and speakers who talk about ideological stuff.
+max larsen yeah i agree thats society would be better off eithout government
I think the problem is fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing, central banking, etc.
Outstanding. Was meaning to make this video myself - now I don't have to. Keep up the great work!
They have tons or great videos... they helped me find your videos... Both of you keep of the good work to spread the true meaning of Liberty and Constitutional Republic.
+Mike Maloney Excellent. Now you have time to fix that money video of yours where you spend a half hour explaining American central banking without mentioning that the Federal Reserve remits its earnings back to the U.S. Treasury, and instead try to convince people that those billions of dollars were being to mysterious private ctitizens.
+Mike Maloney Why only $70T in unfunded liabilities? Prof Kotlikoff estimated this a few years ago to be > $200T. Why the difference? The timespan the obligations come due in???
+PeaknikMicki Those are the same questions I've been wondering.
+Mike Maloney We're happy to share the same ideas space as you, Mike--social change begins with people passionately engaging with the ideas.
This is the scariest horror film I've ever seen!
+Cary Hawkins Your tellin me!
I find the evidence for less government and more fiscal responsibility to be much stronger than the contrary. I'm fine with abolishing social security and other programs that supposedly help the poor. SS seems to be something that hurts me, and I'm not wealthy. I'm not going to get back the money I pay into the system, maybe none of it. The rate of increase in debt is the most alarming problem, but I'm not sure how you can spin these high figures into something that's "okay". There is no fix insight from either party either. They are both big spenders. So, one can conclude that the $19 trillion will likely be closer to $40 trillion by the end of the next president's terms, regardless of party. Given the exponential growth of debt and the lack of same rate of growth in gdp, this can get out of control very quickly. I think you'd have to prove that having this amount of debt is as good or better than not having it, and that seems an impossible task.
Cary Hawkins
"I find the evidence for less government and more fiscal responsibility to be much stronger than the contrary."
Tbh I doubt you actually get any sources that show the "contrary" because it is out there.
Fiscal responsibility? Oh really?
subjectlinesblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Federal-Deficit-Change-by-President.png
(Lower is better, higher is worse)
"I'm fine with abolishing social security and other programs that supposedly help the poor."
Well, I am not going to claim you are a patriot towards your own Citizen and nation then.
"[Social Security] seems to be something that hurts me"
Thats ignorant. Is the positive interest rate on your bank account also hurting you?
"So, one can conclude..." [bla bla repeating the video source despite being told its manipulated numbers]
Did you even read my response?
+Lobos222 agree to disagree
+Cary Hawkins And unless our government stops with the unfettered spending, it is going to be your kid, grandkids, great grandkids and so on who will be saddled with this debt virtually forever.
Thanks usury. Thanks fractional reserve banking.
***** how else will he make money? hes a plumber with a mushroom habit
LEARN LIBERTY IS BACK!!!!
I liked this video, but I really don't like this.
I liked this comment, but I really don't like this.
Xerz I liked your reply but I really don’t like this
Yeah!
Antony Davies is back!
Thank you guys for getting back to real economic issues!
Now that we have someone who knows a thing or two about making money in office, maybe we can start working on improving these numbers.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't these debts owed at different times?
As an analogy, would this be like saying taking out a 200k mortgage on a house is a bad idea because you only make 80k a year?
You're correct, although this video seems to be against any sort of borrowing that can't be paid with next year's taxes. It also fails to mention that this is not one lump sum but many different types of debt owed by different departments to different places, and that the US also owns debt from other countries. The only time our debt has ever seriously come close to harming us in the recent past has been when house republicans got tired of trying to repeal the ACA and threw a fit about the debt ceiling.
+apburner1 I agree with that assessment, but my point is that the video is misleading because it misrepresents deficit spending.
+Kyle Silver
Bravo,... I use a similar example allot when people are claiming a nation is "broke".
If you take up a house loan of XXX and only make XX a year. Are you broke? That usually makes people think differently because the numbers becomes manageable for the average person and the answer is obvious. No, they, who most have a house loan or similar, are not broke so...
Anyway, you pointed out the LL manipulation with a similar analogy so thumbs up for you.
+Kyle Silver A mortgage is not a good analogy. With a $200,000 mortgage, you have both a debt (the mortgage) and an asset (the house). The two balance. A better analogy (and these numbers are proportionally correct - counting unfunded obligations) is that it's like having a $50,000 income and a $1.8 million on your credit card.
The US government does have assets, but those assets (circa $3 trillion) don't come close to balancing with the debt and unfunded obligations (circa $90 trillion).
Like I've said before, the US has a debt problem. I agree with you. I'm opposed to the notion in this video that all deficit spending is bad
Shoulda voted for Ron Paul....
Really helps with my project
Q 1) who allowed money printing without fonds ?
Q 2) to whom us. owes money ?
love this channel!
What I've always wanted to know is, isn't there an average of how much of those unfunded liabilities come due each year? Knowing just the total figure doesn't really tell you how big of a chunk those liabilities are adding to the debt each year.
+fountainhead He used the term "present value." This means that the future payments have been "discounted" by the interest rate to bring them into present terms. For example, if someone is going to pay me $110 in a year's time, and the interest rate is 10%, the present value of that payment is $100. If I wanted to spend that income now, I could borrow $100 from a third party and pay back the $100 with $10 interest next year with the $110 I will receive next year. Similarly, if I were repaid early, a payment of $100 would be "fair" because I could lend that money to a third party and get the same $110 I was going to receive next year.
There is a simple formula for computing the present value V of a permanent stream of yearly payments P (starting one year from now) at interest rate I. V = P/I. Or, since we've been given V and want to find P, IV = P. (Calculating the value of payments that stop is more annoying.)
This clearly depends on the interest rate they've used. At 1%, it would work out to yearly payments of 1% of 70 Trillion, or $700 Billion, FOREVER. That is, people 300 years from now would be paying $700 billion per year to cover current promises, so it is a lower estimate on the "average" yearly payment promised, assuming these promises stop after a while.
+lacklustermathie Thank you, it makes more sense to me now!
So miss leading adding debt with Social security. Social security is separate as its a pain in to program that pays for itself. If you stopped paying social security tax today the government could continue paying with full benefits every American that qualified for the next 19 years. I'm sure you know this if your teach economics?
+Bsalais15 That's incorrect. Social Security is pay-as-you-go. This means that the money that is withheld from your paycheck today does not go into a savings account. It immediately goes out to retirees. If workers stopped paying Social Security taxes today, the government would immediately be unable to cut retirement checks to current retirees.
The claim that the government could keep paying retirement benefits for 19 years is not correct. The reason is that the "19 years' worth of funding" isn't in the form of cash. It is in the form of Treasury Bills. If people stopped paying SS taxes, to keep paying retirement benefits, SS would have to start cashing in those Treasury Bills. That means that the government would have to raise tax rates to come up with the money to repay the Treasury Bills. At the end, all that would have happened is that we would have replaced the SS payroll tax with an equally higher income tax.
This video made me a libertarian
Same
i watch all these videos and read all these books and i still havent got an answer... "what can they do if we dont pay?" Repo the country? is there any collateral or minimum payment? does it just keep going up? 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000$ and forever?
The most of your debt is to yourselves, not to others.
We are a sufficiently large enough and powerful enough country that no country can make us pay. However there are some devastating effects if we don't. Suppose we decided we weren't going to pay off our debt not pay interest on it. All debt lenders would be unwilling to loan to us as they would receive a loss. All banks that have a sizable investment in US bonds would find that the assets invested would be worthless causing an economic downturn worldwide. If the government did nothing, then every company would find large sums of what they thought were safe assets are gone. Their market values would plummet causing them to be unable to take further loans (and large layoffs). The market as a whole would contact by as much as 50%.
Now suppose the government tried to stem the tide with quantitative easing (buying their own debt or printing money). The government could use printed stimulus money to help the economy (since no one would be willing nor able to loan to us). This would initially appear to help, but printed money inflates the value of that currency. Printing on this scale with this much uncertainty in the market would inflate money at a very fast rate. Hyperinflation has in every country that experienced it destroyed the economy leading to a major depression that lasts years.
If we don't deal with our debt problem now, it will deal with us later.
Adam Billman US has printed trillion dollars, where is hyperinflation? Why oil and gold price are falling?
Several things. First, inflation is only a one to one relationship in theories. Just because we double our money does not mean we halve the currencies value. It will inflate and level off at half value eventually, but not immediately. Second, hyperinflation is caused as much by a lack of faith as the actual currency to goods ratio. Twenty dollars is worth twenty dollars because we all believe it is. (Note: this applies to commodities as well. The Spanish suffered under hyperinflation do to a large influx of gold and a weak economy.) In the event we stop paying off our national debt like the op suggested, we would have a great lack of faith indeed.
Hyperinflation is a real occurrence and is supported by basic economics. I would not be wrong to say that literally every major economist throughout history regardless if their individual politics viewed hyperinflation as both real and damaging. Do not take it lightly. Despite what some Keynesians may believe, we are at greater risk of excessive inflation than a deflationary spiral right now.
Adam Billman What is your definition of hyperinflation when will we have hyperinflation? After 10 years? After 50 years? After 100 years?
Can you break down the unfunded liabilities? Can you explain how such large liabilities have gone unfunded for so long? Why hasn't anyone noticed, like bond buyers?
+starrychloe Plenty of people have noticed. But we all assume that the government will "do something" as it becomes necessary to make the promised payments. "Do something" might include cutting benefits (as it did back in the 1980s when it made SS benefits taxable income), raising payroll taxes (as it does from time to time), or altering who receives benefits (as it does when it raises the retirement age), or something more extreme.
But each of these actions is (from taxpayers' perspectives) default because the government is reneging on its financial promise.
I'm not a fan of us furthering our nations' debt to pay off past debts. What do you propose as a solution?
Just add some more "stimulus"....THAT should fix the problem.
;)
are they counted the over debts including those were sold to foreign countries?
After seeing this video, i don't feel so bad for not been able to pay back the cc i used to have.
Is there anything like this for the UK gov?
Makes you wonder why they bother to collect taxes at all. Since they spend far more than they could ever raise with taxes, it's like they need another reason to interfere with your life (the IRS and the joys of tax preparation).
+nenafan1 I know very well how those figures built up over years and decades. I also know that about 50% the actual debt was incurred in the last 10 years, a radical increase. Furthermore, there's an accelerating trend of politicians to focus on what they will spend as a first priority, devastatingly coupled with a growing disregard about the realities of paying back that spending. As the video mentioned: the huge unfunded obligations are vast sums of money owed in the form of promises for which **they have no source of payment, INCLUDING future tax revenue**. They simply cannot be paid period. It's a matter of cutting back the spending, since the spending rate outstrips the income rate of the planet.
If there were any serious plan by the current administration to radically cut spending, reneging a significant percentage of unfunded obligations, and a complete overhaul of the entire tax system, I might believe in the possibility of some hope of coming out of this without a full default. However, as the current administration is leaving office, it's calling for even more spending to the tune of several trillion additional dollars.
Right now, individual tax rates on ALL citizens is roughly 40% or more, when all taxes (not just income taxes) are considered. This doesn't count the double taxation that is corporate taxes and many kinds of investment taxes that ought not count as income anyway because that money is already being taxed individually. Then, with the declining birthrate, there's not going to be that bigger tax base like most taxation models predict. What do you propose? 50% taxation? 75%? 100%? I've seen the figures. Even assuming that Americans won't revolt or simply stop working at a 50% tax rate (which is what I'm doing if we reach 50% taxation, by the way), the amount of spending going on outstrips even the American economy's ability to produce, as the video so clearly illustrates.
Setting aside the fact that most Americans, at some point in their life, are part of the 'highest income earners' category (but only for a year or two due to circumstances), trying to levy even higher tax rates on the high income earners won't work either. I've also seen the figures, plus we have recent experiences with other countries that have tried such aggressive measures (such as France and Cyprus). When those governments try to put much higher tax rates on them in such a way that they can't loophole around it or simply levy a deposit tax on wealth itself in personal bank accounts, these highest income earners just simply leave the country. They'd have their pick of countries due to their wealth, many of which might actually pay THEM to relocate, considering their relative skills with business and production. Even if you forced them to stay and forced them to work just as hard and took all their money, it would not cover even a single year's operating budget for the American government, let alone start to address the national debt or the much higher unfunded obligations.
No, my friend, this problem is going to get worse, probably much worse, before it gets better, and I don't know anyone (except for a handful of libertarians) that's promising any kind of cut in spending. With the institutionalized annual increases in operating budgets of the American government (by law!), no about of additional taxation will do.
each time you say "America is a joke" you must pay 100'000$ of debt , do you think I 'm joking?
guess that at this rate, we are doing **great** at doing extremely bad at not being able to dig ourselves out out of this huge mess..
I believe you're wrong on the 3.8trillion figure that US govn't spent last year. It should be much bigger than that.
+yjfoo23 See "outlays" at the link below. (The latest revised number is $3.7 trillion.)
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z1.xls
+Antony Davies The US debt soared by 674B in November last year. How is that possible? i believe the US government was accruing debt off the books until the debt ceiling was raised in November.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-01/us-total-debt-soars-674-billion-november
To get our country out of debt we could make it an option to offer everyone government bonds when pay day arrived. The money would come out of the checks of the citizen. Once the bond is mature then the citizen can collect. If only 10 million citizens put up only 10 dollars per week then we would start looking pretty. So forth and so on...
Well it can be paid back,but not with money,but with help to other countries in need,Africa Afghanistan and Pakistan,help them,and there is no need for you to pay the money,you already paid it,I hope someone could forward this to the US Government
What can we, the United States citizens, do to reduce the amount of debt?
+Calvin Clark I guess use less of government's stuff and vote for politicians that are aware of the problem and want to reduce it (what normally means free market advocates).
Have a nice day!
+Calvin Clark Start not voting for socialists like Sanders, Obama and Hilary. And vote for someone who understand economics and the world as a hole.
+Rodrigo Teixo I'd say that Sanders is the only true socialist. Obama and Hilldog are Corporatist.
+Calvin Clark just refuse to support the government and let it implode on itself.
+thekidofva No, Sanders is a corporatist as well, he just doesn't know it. His supporters are mainly made up of unions, which are known for being lobby-whores half the time.
Some people estimate that the US government's unfunded liabilities are as high as $200 Trillion
the debt does not matter. it's all make believe.
People do not know economics. Example Japan has huge debt but it is mostly to japanese people. Japanese people have millions with no loans. So Japan debt not important. Also Japan has huge investments abroad and that is why they are great donors.
Sooooo how do we fix this?
Anyone still think Obama has done well after this?
+Mark Jennes Hard to just pin it on one person. Its been a problem since before Reagan. In fact the deficit is getting smaller. Not that it matters with $90 trillion dollars on the line.
+thekidofva It has been a problem since before then, but the problem has grown exponentially in his term.
+Mark Jennes so he made it worse?
AnObviousUsername I said that. Although, if he wanted to, he could have slowed it down instead of sped it up.
AnObviousUsername Hopefully we have reached a point that so low, that we can only go up from here. I know people joke about Trump, but honestly, we need a businessman, and he is the only one willing to do so. Look where "change" has gotten us.
All of the debt that is owed to foreign governments is nothing more than money these entities used to buy Treasury securities (money that is actually denominated in US Dollars) and the US Federal government can create a lot of US Dollars in a second (unlike individuals, businesses, or state and local governments); therefore, the debt is not a big deal like you people claim.
us debt
@ 2008 was ~10T$
@ 2012 it was ~15,4 T$
@2016 its 19+ T$
and interestrates and inflation is.... 1%? we have some catching up to do! tick tock...
Just remember, there's no such thing as government debt, as government doesn't actually produce wealth. YOURE in debt. Its YOU that is going to have yo fund this
Freeze all government spending? That's insane.
We all in debt by default
The fact that a human can't even count from 1 to 1 Trillion within their own lifespan speaks volumes of how bad the US debt is.
This is basically just a reiteration of the video from a few years ago, and it's not providing much direct evidence to back up the $70 trillion figure. It seems to me that unpaid benefits of the variety he mentions are very much up in the air and inexact. Why? Because I heard people only five years ago saying the debt was actually $100 trillion. How can there be such a huge difference between those numbers if it's such an exact figure?
More importantly, though, this sounds a lot like the "unfunded mandates" that Republicans claimed existed during the presidential campaigns in the late 1990s to 2000s. Supposedly it was an indication that Social Security had been robbed by Clinton, or perhaps just an indication that Social Security is a bad program. How did they determine these shortages? Simple. First, don't limit yourself to what you owe in the current year; instead just calculate into infinite as if the liability IS infinite. That might make a little sense if there wasn't the possibility of new taxes being passed during that time to DECREASE that number. But even better, pretend that people live to 150 and still retire at 67. Yeah, when you rig the numbers like that, ANY system is going to look inadequate and bankrupt.
I'm not looking to start a fight; I just want some clear, unmistakable evidence to back up this $70 trillion figure that DOESN'T include projections into the future. Until then, I'm not buying it. Our debt is a huge problem--no argument there--but I'm highly suspicious of a number that is so blatantly one-sided that it conveniently fits a clear agenda. That's usually a surefire sign that the individual presenting the evidence has a bias and isn't presenting all the data. But show me the data, and I'll admit I'm wrong.
learn more.
Another way of stating this is that every family of 4 in the U.S. owes $1,125,000 !!!We are bankrupt - unless of course you all can pay off your portion of this.
I love how people talk like debt is a real thing. Money isn't real you dummies! Haha
Just default on it
- double price gas
- rise taxes to poor and rich
- cut 30% of the millitary budget
in 10 years the debt will be 10 trillion $
It's a bit tricky. If you put that pressure on people, then they'll have less, spend less, and there will be a general slowing in the economy. That slowing would increase your ten year projection by some amount, but that's not the bad part. The bad part is that other countries would not necessarily follow that path, and for some time, you'll be ahead of us. Could be okay in the long run. Could not be okay. I don't pretend to have a better answer. I think yours is a good one. Perhaps a little lighter on the brakes. Seek to pay off at half the pace perhaps. Just my thoughts.
If the Interest goes up , we are screwed by the DA in Washington
+Bob Wright The federal government currently pays 2.5% interest on its debt (the historical average it has paid is 6%). On $19 trillion of official debt, just a one-percentage point increase in interest rates would increase annual interest expense as much as the annual cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. IOW, if interest rates were to return to their historical average, the additional interest expense on the debt would be akin to the expense of waging four Iraq/Afghanistan wars simultaneously.
Who set the interest rate? By market or Central bank?
Technically, interest rates are determined by market forces. However, the central bank adjusts the money supply so that the market forces produce the interest rate that the central bank wants.
It's 2020, the debt is 23 trillion and interest rates have increased resulting in payments on the debt approaching 1 trillion dollars. China invades Taiwan and dumps their U.S. bonds. A run on the dollar ensues and the government takes over private industry instituting a police state. Sound scary? Got to check out the thriller "Liberty Lost: How Debt Destroyed Our Freedoms". First four chapters available to read at www.jamesgcolt.com .
James Colt What currency is needed in order to buy US bond? Where does that currency come from? Does China create US dollar and lend it to US?
this is scary and i'm not even from the U.S
Priporočam nakup plemenitih kovin za zaščito svojega premoženja!
check your stats. they own 128 trillion in assets not 3 trillion.
+Masih Ad-Dajjaal No, the American people own $128 trillion in assets (actually, the number is probably closer to $200 trillion). The federal government is not the American people. The federal government owns $3 trillion.
Part 2 of this should show what happens when the 1% pay their fair share.
+Walter Clark Accounting for all federal taxes, deductions, and exemptions, the top 1% pay an average effective rate of 29%. Middle income Americans pay 11%. The poorest 20% pay 2%. Please define, "fair."
(see Table 4 at the Congressional Budget Office report below)
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes.pdf
+Antony Davies,
What I had in mind is graphically taking what the left thinks is the 1% pile's fair share and having that reduce the government debt. It would of course be minuscule. And then take take every last penny to show how little effect that would be.
But then show what that effect even the fair share effect would have on future growth. Something like that was done in another video called "Eat the Rich". I put that up but you erased it for some reason.
92 views....163 likes....
lol
everyone start pushing coke
I fail to see the problem...
/sarcasm off
.
All we have to do is make Bitcoin worth $90 trillion and then, sell Bitcoins to pay our debt
+jerrylittlemars yah. Let's print money to invest in bitcoin. It will worth $90 trillion really quickly hehe
Is it the end of uncle Sam?
Just madness
tsk tsk
thanks Obama