rasmack 0 #1 July 19, 2006 Stumbled upon a reference to this paper in the news. It seems that one professor Kotlikoff from Boston University thinks that the US economy is very close to the definition of bankruptcy and that something drastic needs to be done to fix this. From the article: QuoteThis partial-equilibrium analysis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds. It seems that the analysis is an extrapolation of the current economy coupled with an analysis of which economic obligations the US governnent has contracted to various demographic groups. His result is that the current social and economic policies are mutually incompatible with a national bankruptcy as the ultimate consequence. Now, I don't know where to file this. Is it a bunch of right wing neo-con ramblings, or is he just a pinko-commie Bush-hating intellectual/liberal? HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #2 July 19, 2006 QuoteStumbled upon a reference to this paper in the news. It seems that one professor Kotlikoff from Boston University thinks that the US economy is very close to the definition of bankruptcy and that something drastic needs to be done to fix this. From the article: QuoteThis partial-equilibrium analysis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds. It seems that the analysis is an extrapolation of the current economy coupled with an analysis of which economic obligations the US governnent has contracted to various demographic groups. His result is that the current social and economic policies are mutually incompatible with a national bankruptcy as the ultimate consequence. Now, I don't know where to file this. Is it a bunch of right wing neo-con ramblings, or is he just a pinko-commie Bush-hating intellectual/liberal? Maybe he's a true conservative, Bush hating, truth loving intellectual.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #3 July 19, 2006 QuoteMaybe he's a true conservative, Bush hating, truth loving intellectual. Well... the soft spot of the analysis seems to be the inclusion of "soft" obligations such as benefits people are going to be expecting from the state, but he seems to be treating them rather rigorously. However, I don't know anything about economic theory, so he could probably tell me anything... On another note: Any chance of running into you at WFFC/Summerfest?HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 July 19, 2006 You do not need to worry... the President has it on good authority that the debt will only have to be paid by the sinners and unbelievers who are not going to be RAPTURED with him and the rest of the supposedly good christians he has surrounded himself with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #5 July 19, 2006 QuoteStumbled upon a reference to this paper in the news. It seems that one professor Kotlikoff from Boston University thinks that the US economy is very close to the definition of bankruptcy and that something drastic needs to be done to fix this. From the article: QuoteThis partial-equilibrium analysis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds. It seems that the analysis is an extrapolation of the current economy coupled with an analysis of which economic obligations the US governnent has contracted to various demographic groups. His result is that the current social and economic policies are mutually incompatible with a national bankruptcy as the ultimate consequence. Now, I don't know where to file this. Is it a bunch of right wing neo-con ramblings, or is he just a pinko-commie Bush-hating intellectual/liberal? 43 Trillion in the red.... Hmmm Sounds like a wee problem to me. The US just needs to find 43Trillion dollars worth of oil and all will be well (or should that be oil well) Just kidding but yes I'm glad I'm not living in the US right now because its just a matter of time now before the bubble bursts.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #6 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteMaybe he's a true conservative, Bush hating, truth loving intellectual. Well... the soft spot of the analysis seems to be the inclusion of "soft" obligations such as benefits people are going to be expecting from the state, but he seems to be treating them rather rigorously. However, I don't know anything about economic theory, so he could probably tell me anything... On another note: Any chance of running into you at WFFC/Summerfest? WFFC maybe, Summerfest for sure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 July 19, 2006 Quote 43 Trillion in the red.... Hmmm Sounds like a wee problem to me. Well, worst case scenario here is we tell our creditors to come collect from us. BTW, how many aircraft carriers do they have? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #8 July 19, 2006 No worst case scenario is that no one gives the US any further credit and oil ceases to be traded in dollars. That will be far from pretty.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 July 19, 2006 Quotethe U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds. I believe that this is the problem. Ironically, it gives a spin to what "bankrupt" is. Most people (myself, included) would look at "bankrupt" as being unable to pay debts as they come due. This gives an interesting idea of "debt" as dealing with "promises." The first portion of the article makes some commentary about discretionary spending. Hey, we've never defaulted on interest or principle from loans or anything, so our actual credit should be good. The article points out, though, that the government has promised a lot and keeps promising more, but doesn't have the ability to keep those promises. I don't really see this as neo-con rambling (nationalize health care???) or Bush-hating by pinkos (we know it is not pinko - the author seems to be pretty clear about his dislike of high taxes, referring to them as "confiscatory" and proposing a national sales tax, which liberals don't seem to like too much, as well as, EGAD, privatizing Social Security). I thin it seems to make some pretty sound policy arguments. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 July 19, 2006 Quote No worst case scenario is that no one gives the US any further credit and oil ceases to be traded in dollars. Quote I consider that the next to worst case scenario, and it is the one most likely to happen, in my opinion.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #11 July 19, 2006 But are 'you' not just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? What happens if and when Peter has had enough?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #12 July 19, 2006 Canada has approximately 10% the population and economic power as the US. Our National debt is over 500B which is more than ten times yours. Furthermore our provencial governments are carying debts per capita much higher than your state govs (many who carry none by constitution). However we have run surplus budgets for eight years in a row. We have reduced our national debt by close to 100B in that period. I would have to conclude that the US is nowhere near being unable to meet it's fiduciary obligations. Will it require higher taxes? more service fees? a drop in the quality and quantity of government services? A significant scaling back of the military and the consequent unemployment that will entail? In some combination or another the answer is inevitably YES! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #13 July 19, 2006 Our debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.htmlWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #14 July 19, 2006 And that isn't including the trade deficitWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #15 July 19, 2006 QuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #16 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. All of it? That would be just silly. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #17 July 19, 2006 The gross debt is a concern, but the net debt is what you should be looking at (what I was comparing it to was roughly analagous to our net debt). Tresury bills held by other branches of the Federal government are not real debt. They are a bit like hours on the engine that you haven't put any money aside to do the overhaul for; you don't actually owe the money but if you don't change your ways you will end up without an airplane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #18 July 19, 2006 Our net debt (public debt) is still nearly 5 Trillion dollars. You said Canada's debt was higher at 500B. It is not. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htmWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #19 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. All of it? That would be just silly. Right. Reagan has a huge slice of it too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #20 July 19, 2006 QuoteAnd that isn't including the trade deficit Right, and that is HUGE too. China, Japan and Europe will soon own the US. Good job we've got more nukes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #21 July 19, 2006 Being in debt is not the same as being bankrupt. A person, or other entity, is not bankrupt until a legal proceeding has taken place and found them unable to meet their financial obligations. You are not bankrupt until you have successfully filed for and been given that status by a court. That little technicality aside, did the "research" take into account assets? Or was it just subtracting projected obligations from projected income?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #22 July 19, 2006 QuoteYou are not bankrupt until you have successfully filed for and been given that status by a court. I think the definition might be a little different (and somewhat looser) when you're a country instead of a person. Edit: When you are unable to meet your financial obligations you are de facto bankrupt. I think this is the definition used. QuoteThat little technicality aside, did the "research" take into account assets? Or was it just subtracting projected obligations from projected income? For a country to seriously start liquidating assets a major change of policy would be needed. This study (as I understand it) merely highlights the mutual incompatibility of current policies by the administration. They are of course free to change those policies and this paper is probably meant to apply pressure for exactly this to happen. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #23 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuote 43 Trillion in the red.... Hmmm Sounds like a wee problem to me. Well, worst case scenario here is we tell our creditors to come collect from us. BTW, how many aircraft carriers do they have? What? They places to pawn aircraft carriers?I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #24 July 19, 2006 QuoteWill it require higher taxes? more service fees? a drop in the quality and quantity of government services? A significant scaling back of the military and the consequent unemployment that will entail? In some combination or another the answer is inevitably YES! I like this thought. Will a drastic cut in the quantity of services cause some pain? Yep. Absolutely. I'd imagine it as an alcoholic society going through collective DT's. Very few people would willingly want to go through DT's, but for the hope of recovery it is something that should certainly be done. After a while, once the DT's have passed, the individuals in society will figure out, "Hey. I actually CAN do this." PJ O'Rourke is my favorite author. He had a plan to balance the budget, and his starting point was his Law of Circumcision - you can take 10% off the top of anything and it will function just fine. Of course he also said, "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Skyrad 0 #11 July 19, 2006 But are 'you' not just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? What happens if and when Peter has had enough?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #12 July 19, 2006 Canada has approximately 10% the population and economic power as the US. Our National debt is over 500B which is more than ten times yours. Furthermore our provencial governments are carying debts per capita much higher than your state govs (many who carry none by constitution). However we have run surplus budgets for eight years in a row. We have reduced our national debt by close to 100B in that period. I would have to conclude that the US is nowhere near being unable to meet it's fiduciary obligations. Will it require higher taxes? more service fees? a drop in the quality and quantity of government services? A significant scaling back of the military and the consequent unemployment that will entail? In some combination or another the answer is inevitably YES! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #13 July 19, 2006 Our debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.htmlWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #14 July 19, 2006 And that isn't including the trade deficitWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 July 19, 2006 QuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #16 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. All of it? That would be just silly. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #17 July 19, 2006 The gross debt is a concern, but the net debt is what you should be looking at (what I was comparing it to was roughly analagous to our net debt). Tresury bills held by other branches of the Federal government are not real debt. They are a bit like hours on the engine that you haven't put any money aside to do the overhaul for; you don't actually owe the money but if you don't change your ways you will end up without an airplane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #18 July 19, 2006 Our net debt (public debt) is still nearly 5 Trillion dollars. You said Canada's debt was higher at 500B. It is not. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htmWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #19 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOur debt is nearly 9 TRILLION dude. Here is a nice moving clock of it: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Quick, someone hurry up and blame Bush for all of it. All of it? That would be just silly. Right. Reagan has a huge slice of it too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #20 July 19, 2006 QuoteAnd that isn't including the trade deficit Right, and that is HUGE too. China, Japan and Europe will soon own the US. Good job we've got more nukes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #21 July 19, 2006 Being in debt is not the same as being bankrupt. A person, or other entity, is not bankrupt until a legal proceeding has taken place and found them unable to meet their financial obligations. You are not bankrupt until you have successfully filed for and been given that status by a court. That little technicality aside, did the "research" take into account assets? Or was it just subtracting projected obligations from projected income?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #22 July 19, 2006 QuoteYou are not bankrupt until you have successfully filed for and been given that status by a court. I think the definition might be a little different (and somewhat looser) when you're a country instead of a person. Edit: When you are unable to meet your financial obligations you are de facto bankrupt. I think this is the definition used. QuoteThat little technicality aside, did the "research" take into account assets? Or was it just subtracting projected obligations from projected income? For a country to seriously start liquidating assets a major change of policy would be needed. This study (as I understand it) merely highlights the mutual incompatibility of current policies by the administration. They are of course free to change those policies and this paper is probably meant to apply pressure for exactly this to happen. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #23 July 19, 2006 QuoteQuote 43 Trillion in the red.... Hmmm Sounds like a wee problem to me. Well, worst case scenario here is we tell our creditors to come collect from us. BTW, how many aircraft carriers do they have? What? They places to pawn aircraft carriers?I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 July 19, 2006 QuoteWill it require higher taxes? more service fees? a drop in the quality and quantity of government services? A significant scaling back of the military and the consequent unemployment that will entail? In some combination or another the answer is inevitably YES! I like this thought. Will a drastic cut in the quantity of services cause some pain? Yep. Absolutely. I'd imagine it as an alcoholic society going through collective DT's. Very few people would willingly want to go through DT's, but for the hope of recovery it is something that should certainly be done. After a while, once the DT's have passed, the individuals in society will figure out, "Hey. I actually CAN do this." PJ O'Rourke is my favorite author. He had a plan to balance the budget, and his starting point was his Law of Circumcision - you can take 10% off the top of anything and it will function just fine. Of course he also said, "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
