Those organizations charge very little though for the amount of debt America is in
Right now that is true, but it wasn't always true. Factor in fighting and financing multiple countries' wars, developing our big-ass military, funding the NGOs, international lending, social welfare programs, and loose trade restrictions to ensure that international business can flow through our country; and you start to see how much we really spend.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Yeah I wonder who paid for those stupid wars
Which ones? USA has only been at peace for 17 years in its entire history.
As a percentage of GDP, the national debt has been relatively level since we went from a gold standard to fiat currency - up until about 20 years ago, which is several decades after we decoupled. Also, it's been higher than it is now, before the decoupling. The whole gold standard thing is something people like to latch on to, but there really isn't much evidence to support the idea. You could argue that tying the dollar to gold limits government spending, but as I said that isn't really true, and not using it gives us some protection from things like economic depressions and foreign influence in our currency. I'll also point out that the stock market isn't a very good indicator of economic performance, as you've pointed out. It is *an* indicator, but you can't judge the health of the economy based solely on how the stock market is doing. That's not to say that the economy isn't bloated, or that we aren't headed for a depression, or that it's the normal way to live... it's just that the gold standard doesn't have anything to do with any of that.There's one reason and one reason only that we're in so much debt: we spend more than we make. If we want to fix that, we have to increase what we make or decrease what we spend. So far, nobody in Washington is willing to do either.
@HungLikeAHorsefly While I agree that decoupling from the gold standard was with the best intention, it has been abused like no other today. With this relief package, they actually funded upwards of 50 million to the kennedy arts and humanities foundation lol. Is that really necessary? Another factor to consider is how we now measure our GPD. I've read some of the quarterly reports, and in the world of accounting you can manipulate numbers all day till it tells you something you want it to. Some of these analysis are comical and should be considered fraud. I believe the government should have the power to control some of their interest rates as a measure to control the economy from inflationary and deflationary periods. Having said that, printing trillions of dollars with no value to back it is created an economic bubble that is to eventually collapse entirely. It's economically unhealthy. "we spend more than we make. If we want to fix that, we have to increase what we make or decrease what we spend. So far, nobody in Washington is willing to do either." - Completely agree, but what I disagree with is stating that the federal reserve and decoupling from the gold standard has nothing to do with any of this. It all correlates and works together. There's no singular reason as to why we have such an healthy economy and so much debt.
I personally believe in free capitalism. I think if companies fail right now, then it's survival of the fittest. If American Airlines goes out of business, then someone who's more savvy will buy them out and the cycle will continue. Bailing out all of these major companies only creates a temporary fix and it also enables crony capitalism.
You could make the same claim about the level to which having a gold standard helps things; most, if not all, of the commentary on why we need to return to a gold standard is rhetoric that isn't rooted in valid macroeconomic concepts and any analysis done on the topic is questionable at best. That's precisely why most economists - even those deeply mired in Conservative monetary policy - don't support the idea that a gold standard would be better than fiat. I'll also point out that correlation isn't causality and in this case, the correlation we do have is rather weak. I'm not that much of a capitalist, but I agree with you: we should let companies fail. If you're going to play the game [of Capitalism], then if you fail, you die. That said, there's a huge difference between say, American Airlines and my neighbor who owns the little restaurant around the corner that I eat at all the time. If we're going to be giving out handouts, I want to see him get money to save his business long before AA sees a dime.
@HungLikeAHorsefly I've seen some reputable studies that show gold standard is superior, and you have to realize that fiat has failed every time throughout the history of the world. My uncle who passed away a couple of years ago was a financial analyst for the federal government, and handled accounts of billions of dollars. Granted, I don't know exactly what his job entailed given he had a Top Secret security clearance, but he fully supported going back to the gold standard. He's the one who introduced me to economics. There are reputable sources that show that the gold standard is superior.You also have to realize that these republicans also have vested self interest in mind when they consider what the federal reserve does. It keeps them at the top. The elite bracket. Taking away the federal reserve's power also means taking away their power. I think in all, the federal government has formulated a crony capitalistic society, and we need to take power away from them. More power to local and state government, less power to federal.
@HungLikeAHorsefly "I'll also point out that correlation isn't causality and in this case, the correlation we do have is rather weak." - I completely disagree for a number of reasons. I can get into it later today after work. About to start my day. Have a good one.
Note that other nations, Germany and Netherlands, but also Greece (though they were basically held at gun point) have decreased their debt significantly. But that went along with significant austerity, which a government must be willing to do.It’s also important to note that there must be sufficient economic growth to bring down the debt. The Italians had severe austerity (primary surplus for almost all of the last 25 years) but barely any growth, and therefore very little change in debt-to-GDP
You obviously haven't done any research
It's not just defend other countries that causes the military budget to be so high, it's constantly being at war just so the MIC and defense contractors continue to make huge profits.
@llorando And the wars we're in are perpetually against people who don't hurt us, but hurt people who are too cowardly to defend themselves, therefore we do defend them.
The wars were in, aren't about defending them, just look at Syria, the US/CIA funded terrorist cause more death and destruction than president Assad who actually protects Christians. If the US would stop funding terrorist, we wouldn't haft to defend said people against them.
@llorando The US hasn't funded any terrorists, but have helped rebels fight against the fascist dictator Assad who dropped chemical bombs on innocent civilians in his country, which is a war crime.
That's totally not true, the US funds so called rebels, that are in reality terrorist. Assad dropped chemical bombs just like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVYl_lALhv0
@llorando Which is why we fought against Saddam and fight against Assad. Your defense of a fascist dictator who drops chemical agents on civilians is quite concerning.
Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. What's concerning is you believe everything the government. The majority of the Syrian people doesn't not want the US and it's allies to over throw Assad. Their is no 100% proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack as terrorist groups in Syria also posses chemical weapons. US carried out regime change in Libya which opened the doors for terrorist groups to come walking in and setup slave markets.